"Time" and the Multiverses.

The interesting thing when looking at this issue is to apply it to unconsciousness.

It is true to say that when we are unconscious [not conscious of dreaming] that we cannot declare ourselves as unconscious whilst in that state.

It is further true that we can only surmise that we have been unconscious upon waking up. Surmise because our summation is only available when we look around us and see the change that has taken place since we became unconscious of that change.
"The time on the clock tells me I have been unconscious for so long...etc etc."
So it is again only on reflection that we can consider nothingness as a reality. In other words, it is something that shows us the no-thing but only by deductive reasoning..... and not by actual experience.

There for Nothing is beyond the concept of infinity.....hmmm....[what a tangle]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hello Seeker,
Perhaps my innate density has some bearing on the matter, but you are using many words and concepts and assertions with which I have no experience.
1) You are asserting a 'fact'. I know of no such facts.
2) You use the word (concept) 'truth'. I don't know what that might be either.
3) You describe this 'truth' as not complex.
4) You posit some kind of 'god' of which I have no experience
5) Anthropomorphise it as a 'he'
6) Describe 'him'! as 'So simple'..
7) You have 'Him' requiring something of us (does 'he' speak to you directly?)
8) Because 'he' 'needs' our understanding? More anthropomorphising?

Thats a lot of 'givens' that you are expecting me to swallow, and move on from there. I'm sorry, but I cannot do that unless it is understood that we will be playing a pointless fantasy word/mind game with no basis in (at least MY) 'reality'. Is that what you are proposing?

Let me see if I can continue nonetheless...

"The Tao that can be defined is not the Tao."
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao."
"The Tao that can be understood is not the Tao."
"The Tao that can be conceptualized is not the Tao."

Are you relating the 'Tao' to your 'God'?

It seems that the same thing can be said of god.. according to the 'scriptures of the believers'. Are you writing your own scripture?

To me, your first sentence here is a contradiction. 'He' can be defined, yet once defined, the definition slips off of this 'teflon god'?

Definition is only possible with 'material things' that have 'attributes'. The advanced 'goddists' all seem to agree that their 'god' is beyond our pitiful mentalisms, concepts, thoughts. That 'it' has no attributes! The complete Sikh scriptures, the Shri Adi Granth, a compilation of the writings of the line of their gurus is all about what this 'god' is NOT and there can be nothing positively 'attributed' to 'it'. One reason, among many, is that 'if' 'god' 'exists' beyond 'time', then then 'it' cannot 'exist' as such, as 'time' is a prerequisite of 'existence' in the omniverse. And 'time', too, is an illusion. Our mind is linear in that it exists within the 'fiction of time' and cannot possibly conceive of that which is 'beyond time', beyond 'the illusion of linearity'. The existence of this 'god', if the traditional 'beliefs' are valid in some way, can never truly be known. Actually, NOTHING (much less this transcendental 'god') can truly be 'known'. All must be based on some 'assumption'. I can assume nothing and remain intellectually honest with integrity.

"Who borrows the Medusa's eye
Resigns to the empirical lie!
The 'knower' petrifies the 'known;
The subtle dancer turns to stone!"

Definition is petrification and death. 'All' of this 'life' is in states of transformation, constantly, and to attempt to 'define' something is to imprison it in a moment of 'time' to ease our understandings of the world around us. Names and definitions are fallatious ways to understand that which cannot be easily (if at all) understood. That is why I am nameless. I will not have my life turned to stone for your (generally speaking) convenience.

So I ask, if definition is 'shown' to be false the moment it is attempted, why do you condone a definition only to find it 'ludicrous'?

I find that 'naming things' is merely buying into the illusion that there is any quantitive or qualitative differences extant between 'anything'! That 'things' are individual, seperate chunks of matter seperate and unique from each other. I don't buy into the illusion deeply enough to base my understanding and 'life' around it. It is all 'make believe' to me. It is only 'real' within the 'illusion'. I make believe that there really is a banana for me to ask for at the store that is different from any of the rest of this dream universe dream stuff... One either lives one's understanding, honestly and authentically, or one is a liar, a hypocrite or deluded.

Just because something is 'believed' by many is not evidence of 'existence'. That is a cognitive fallacy. Numbers of believers is not 'evidence'. And, yes, people throught history have been suckered by their senses and mind to believe that the illusion, via ego, is 'reality' and thusly become 'deluded'. THEN they try to validate with conjured 'evidence' or violence (remember the emotional aspect?).
I don't feel like a 'pessimist', but would probably appear to be to an 'optimist'. Both being deluded and lost in their fantasies. If anything is 'real' to us, it is HERE/NOW, not some imagined future or past which has no 'existence' at all outside mental gymnastics on the fiction bars. I am neither. Perhaps a realist?

Sounds like a fast track to the deepest possible understandings to me... All disciplines lead to Rome? I have found that they do!

Now that makes sense! Emotional 'beliefs', by their very nature, are not founded upon evidence, but emotional need. Then one spends time trying to validate that emotional belief. If you wish to embrace agnosticism (a poorly constructed word when thought about) because of a lack of evidence, why not skip the emotional claptrap and head straight towards the intellectually honest approach. Ahh, yes, the 'emotional need' for 'belief'.. That is more than I wish to go into here, though. That, I guess, is part of the 'healing' that we are doing throughout our lives. Either healing our minds and emotions, or compensating for them (not healthy, but better than madness and violence).

I find no problem. We have to do something while here (or not). Perhaps, over time, as your attempts fail to find 'evidence' for the common groundless emotionally needy fantasies known as 'beliefs', you will be led deeper, eventually, into a less deluded understanding of what 'might be' and what 'isn't'.

True. It is not possible to prove (evidence) a negative. You can only evidence that which has 'existence', something for which there IS evidence. No one can 'prove' that invisible pink unicorns are not following me around. That is a logical fallacy to think that a negative can be 'proven' or 'evidenced'.
I do hear that asked often (to 'prove' a negative) here by folks with a bit less 'training' in logic.
I'm not saying that pink unicorns, or god, for that matter doesn't exist, I'm saying that we can never 'know' for certain if they do or not. No evidence or experience, for me, anyway, so until then, well, I'll just never know. I have no need to 'believe' in something. I can accept not knowing that which cannot be known. In the interest of intellectual honesty.

Poetry can certainly speak of that which prose is incapable.

*__-

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Quack:

We may have to substitute "nothing" with something else, yes,b ut it might also be easier to simply define nothing and offer the proof for that definition's correspondence to reality.

The notion that we can't experience unconsciousness through anything but reflection is fascinating, specifically with the links you drew to the experience of nothing, which unconsciousness essentially is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

reminds me of a little ditty:
"no-one knows what nobody knows because no-one knows' nothing"....ha

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nameless pretty much said what I'd say. It's impossible to talk about religion without going around in circles, cause the believer, believes so strongly.

_______________________

On the subject on infinity, here's a question I have.

Are you infinite?

 

Yes. You know the number "0"?

 

I'm only exposing its existance, that's all.

Something essential which is consistent with everyone's experience.

Complex means that it is hard to understand it.

Who knows God?

Sorry. My mistake. It's the force of habit....

Simplicity does not necessarily imply something easily understandable.

Do I? Where?

It's not like that. I just "know".....
It might be just an increased awareness on the part of my ego....

I don't recall saying that.

No. I'm just exposing a fact which I don't require nobody to believe.

Yes.

No. I'm putting the pieces of the puzzle all together.

It's a paradox. To define God is like trying to define an ocean by putting some of its water in a bucket. That water is just a part of the ocean, not the entire ocean. The same thing happens when you try to define God with a word.

Are your thoughts material?

Yes.

It's fun to discuss.

 

Are you talking about atheism? No. Atheism is a logical fallacy.

Exactly why I don't buy into atheism.

Which is why agnosticism is the only logical option.

Everyone believes in many things. You always have subjective perspectives which differ from others' perspectives.

 

“ Originally Posted by nameless
Hello Seeker,
Perhaps my innate density has some bearing on the matter, but you are using many words and concepts and assertions with which I have no experience.
1) You are asserting a 'fact'. I know of no such facts. ”

I'm only exposing its existance, that's all.

In your mind!

“ 2) You use the word (concept) 'truth'. I don't know what that might be either. ”

Something essential which is consistent with everyone's experience.

Am I part of 'everyone'? Then you would be in error. Ask ten people about 'truth' and see for yourself the error of your assertion.

“ 3) You describe this 'truth' as not complex. ”

Complex means that it is hard to understand it.

My point is that one would have to 'experience' it before there is something 'existing' to be 'understood'.

“ 4) You posit some kind of 'god' of which I have no experience ”

Who knows God?

Then who can discuss 'it'?

“ 5) Anthropomorphise it as a 'he' ”

Sorry. My mistake. It's the force of habit....

Could that also be the 'reason' for 'belief'?

“ 6) Describe 'him'! as 'So simple'.. ”

Simplicity does not necessarily imply something easily understandable.

Of course, but we would have to have 'common experience' in order to rationally discuss 'it'. You 'posit' a 'god' and proceed to 'describe 'it'. You have lost me at the level of your 'supposition' of 'god'. How can I discuss attributes with you?

“ 7) You have 'Him' requiring something of us ”

Do I? Where?

"He requires from us a great deal of thought in order to understand Him."

“ (does 'he' speak to you directly?) ”

It's not like that. I just "know".....
It might be just an increased awareness on the part of my ego....

Than how can i discuss something so personally relevent to you alone? One cannot logically discuss something for which you have no other evidence than 'faith'?

“ 8) Because 'he' 'needs' our understanding? More anthropomorphising? ”

I don't recall saying that.

A 'requirement' is a 'need'... see above.

“ Thats a lot of 'givens' that you are expecting me to swallow, and move on from there. I'm sorry, but I cannot do that unless it is understood that we will be playing a pointless fantasy word/mind game with no basis in (at least MY) 'reality'. Is that what you are proposing?”

No. I'm just exposing a fact which I don't require nobody to believe.

Please define 'fact'?

Are you relating the 'Tao' to your 'God'? ”

Yes.

OK..

“ It seems that the same thing can be said of god.. according to the 'scriptures of the believers'. Are you writing your own scripture? ”

No. I'm putting the pieces of the puzzle all together.

Good luck

It's a paradox. To define God is like trying to define an ocean by putting some of its water in a bucket. That water is just a part of the ocean, not the entire ocean. The same thing happens when you try to define God with a word.

Then I don't understand your 'need' to 'define' your 'god' if it cannot be done?
If hitting your head on the floor turns out to be fruitless, why do it again? Slow learner?

“ Definition is only possible with 'material things' that have 'attributes'. ”

Are your thoughts material?

Do thoughts have attributes?

“ So I ask, if definition is 'shown' to be false the moment it is attempted, why do you condone a definition only to find it 'ludicrous'? ”

It's fun to discuss.

Do you derive 'pleasure' from wasting people's (and your own) time and energy in idle pointless mental 'games'?

“ Originally Posted by nameless
If you wish to embrace agnosticism (a poorly constructed word when thought about) because of a lack of evidence, why not skip the emotional claptrap and head straight towards the intellectually honest approach. ”

Are you talking about atheism? No. Atheism is a logical fallacy.

Perhaps you might re-read what I just wrote. If I were talking about atheism I would have said 'atheism'.

And I think that if you did a bit of Googling re; atheism, from the perspective of atheists, you would learn the fallacy in your statement.

Exactly why I don't buy into atheism.

Again, learn about it before deciding whether to purchace or not.

“ I'm not saying that pink unicorns, or god, for that matter doesn't exist, I'm saying that we can never 'know' for certain if they do or not. ”

Which is why agnosticism is the only logical option.

Works for me..

“ I have no need to 'believe' in something. I can accept not knowing that which cannot be known. In the interest of intellectual honesty. ”

Everyone believes in many things.

So, are you calling me a liar, or did you just not read what I write?
I'll write it again for the hearing impared,
I HAVE NO BELIEFS!

You always have subjective perspectives which differ from others' perspectives.

On a certain 'level', you are correct... so?

Oops, my apologies to all here as I just realized how off topic I have gone. Hey Seeker, If you wish to continue this, we aught to do it somewhere appropriate? Let me know where, if...

 

Just a note:
In approximately 15 years since understanding the notion of nothing I have never met any one who could like wise understand it. I have read various sutras [ in particular the Diamond Sutra ], gone to many theosophical meetings, attempted to explain in English the value of nothing, but not once has any one ever seen the solution that I see and shared in it's revelation.
[possibly because I haven't looked far enough....]

Congradulations Prince_James....well done.
The reason why this has been to me so important to me, is because to go on to understand metaphysics and how that can be unified with Physics the notion of reflection and nothingness is essential. Of course if the notion of nothingness can not be understood properly then I am frustrated in the attempt to describe unification of metaphysics and physics.

 

Dude, you are a day late and a dollar short...
There are umpteen sites and books that have been preaching the metaphysics/QM new paradigm for years.. There is so much published information on Quantum/ Metaphysics... and every other branch of science is being forced to accommodate the new 'understanding' or be left in the dust. Where ya been?
Quick, go see the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Dont read this.. GO!!!
Heres a couple of relatively easy reads and one for the more mathematically declined..
http://www.hearthstone-i.org/quantum.html
http://www.meta-religion.com/Physics/Particle_physics/math_prof.htm
http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Phenomenology/#fn4
Sorry...
And, BTW, this is the first I've ever heard of your 'essential' 'notion'...

 

weeellll there you have it...or in the lingo of down under.."well there you go.."

 

And I might add not a single one of them can adequately describe or explain Ex-nhillo creation.........obvously one needs to define "nothing" first to even get close to explaining this rather paradoxed event.

 

I would imagine that you would first have to assume the 'reality' of the 'material. I have found that the apparent 'material' is 'fictitious'. Therefor you are asking how can a 'dream' come from 'consciousness'. Very easily. You create a similar 'reality' every night while you sleep, fer crissakes. How difficult is that? Seens nowhere close to paradox when one understands the nature of the 'components'. The question itself becomes irrelevent now. Exactly NOTHING comes from Nothing. The problem is in your vision and misunderstanding nothing for something. Fiction for 'truth'. Delusion.

 

I can only repeat:

You may have the metaphysical aspect but put it in Physics aspect as well.
Unfortunately a purely metaphysical explanation is insufficient on it's own as an adequate explanation.....

 

At this point, yes, it's in my mind.

People don't know the truth. They have their own subjective perspectives to what truth may be, but they differe greatly according to their circumstances. When I said it would be consistent with everyone's experience I was very specific in the fact that it should be an essential experience, not a regular subjective one.

“

Many do.

Whoever wants to. You don't need to completely know something in order to discuss it.

How could that be a reason?

I didn't mean to discuss it.

I don't remember ever saying that.

It's not relevant just to me. Anyone who has an increased awareness can understand this.

Again, I said nothing about that.

It doesn't matter. As I said before, I was just commenting it. You are very off-topic now...

You can understand why. Once you understand why it cannot be discussed in the usual manner, then you can start to understand the actual thing. It's a long process...

Yes. But you implied that they were material.

Yes. But it's more then that.

I've studied all that before. I can see the atheistic fallacy.

Well... that's a complete discussion by itself. See thread "For the "Non-Believers"" for that....

That's the ENTIRE point of the exercise. Re-read things that I wrote. Everything depends on that.

If you want, be my guest. But I didn't mean to discuss this.

 

Dude, you arent listening. How many times have I referenced Quantum Mechanics? Quantum itself enters the metaphysical, the mystical, if you understand it at all..
Again sorry..
Perhaps that is what happens when one developes one's 'hypotheses' in isolation of all other disciplines and sciences. One would be in error to 'assume' (that again) cutting edge thinking.
Have you looked at those few sites I posted for you at all?

 

I'm only exposing its existance, that's all.

In your mind! ”

At this point, yes, it's in my mind.

Something essential which is consistent with everyone's experience.

Am I part of 'everyone'? Then you would be in error. Ask ten people about 'truth' and see for yourself the error of your assertion. ”

People don't know the truth. They have their own subjective perspectives to what truth may be, but they differe greatly according to their circumstances. When I said it would be consistent with everyone's experience I was very specific in the fact that it should be an essential experience, not a regular subjective one.

You can posit 'should' but as it is not a commomly essentially similar experience, it becomes mere idle speculation of the existence of pink unicorns because you have some 'belief' within your mind. You say that, "People don't know the truth" so if it's very existence is in question, aught we not 'clear that up' before taking our 'speculations' further?

My point is that one would have to 'experience' it before there is something 'existing' to be 'understood'. ”

Many do.

Many people CLAIM to 'know' the 'Truth'. Why is it that as soon as an honest, intelligent person claims to know the 'Truth' it is discarded so soon for a 'new improved' version of the 'Truth'?

“ “ 4) You posit some kind of 'god' of which I have no experience ”

Who knows God?

Then who can discuss 'it'? ”

Whoever wants to. You don't need to completely know something in order to discuss it.

Completely? No one knows ANYTHING about it. It has never been shown (evidence) to even 'exist'. Know completely? 'Know' NOTHING at all!! All personally held beliefs and mental constructs built on emotionality and mist... Discuss away, though, it is referred to as 'idle speculation'.

Sorry. My mistake. It's the force of habit....

Could that also be the 'reason' for 'belief'? ”

How could that be a reason?

Perhaps youve been 'fed' this 'concept' all your life, had it supported by numerous 'hearing' and many believers (fallacy) and, through 'force of habit' just accept it as 'real'?

Do I? Where?

I don't remember ever saying that.

Page 6 of this thread, 17th post, your second sentence.

It's not like that. I just "know".....
It might be just an increased awareness on the part of my ego....

Than how can i discuss something so personally relevent to you alone? One cannot logically discuss something for which you have no other evidence than 'faith'? ”

It's not relevant just to me. Anyone who has an increased awareness can understand this.

Puh-leeese! Are you seriously attempting to validate your beliefs and concepts by asserting that if I were simply as 'advanced' as you are that I could 'understand' and would 'agree'? And that others who 'agree with you' must ipso facto be 'advanced' and those who question are simply 'dullards'? Is this what you truly are attempting to rationally and logically argue? <rolls eyes>

I don't recall saying that.

A 'requirement' is a 'need'... see above. ”

Again, I said nothing about that.

See same post that I referrenced above, page 6 of this thread....
There are exercises that can help you to improve your memory.

It doesn't matter. As I said before, I was just commenting it. You are very off-topic now...

Run, rabbit, runnnn....

“ It's a paradox.

You seem to be falling over a lot of paradoxes. That is usually an indication that there is something in error with the initial hypothesis. You can simply go the usual Xtian route and claim that "God's ways are not understandable by mere man and we just need to 'trust' and have 'faith' and He'll tell us all about it when we get to Heaven..."

Then I don't understand your 'need' to 'define' your 'god' if it cannot be done?
If hitting your head on the floor turns out to be fruitless, why do it again? Slow learner? ”

You can understand why. Once you understand why it cannot be discussed in the usual manner, then you can start to understand the actual thing. It's a long process...

Uh huh...

“ “ Definition is only possible with 'material things' that have 'attributes'. ”

Are your thoughts material?

Do thoughts have attributes? ”

Yes. But you implied that they were material.

Yes, in that sense, yes. Made of the same 'stuff' as everything else. It just 'appears' more 'subtle'.

“ “ So I ask, if definition is 'shown' to be false the moment it is attempted, why do you condone a definition only to find it 'ludicrous'? ”

It's fun to discuss.

Do you derive 'pleasure' from wasting people's (and your own) time and energy in idle pointless mental 'games'? ”

Yes. But it's more then that.

In which case, you needn't reply to this as I'll wast no more of my time on your entertainment at the expense of this thread and everyone else. Enjoy your 'fantasies'.

Everyone believes in many things.

So, are you calling me a liar, or did you just not read what I write?
I'll write it again for the hearing impared,
I HAVE NO BELIEFS! ”

Well... that's a complete discussion by itself.

No, it is not open for discussion. It is my life and understanding and not available for you to judge it' validity. Typical Xtian behavior....

I'll see you another time, I'm sure, but as far as I'm concerned this conversation is at an end.
Peace...