The fully painted picture, would be an empty canvas

The fully painted picture, would be an empty canvas [and that is what reality should be]?

I am standing on the bank of the river, looking at the golden sunset cast across its surface towards me. If there was another iteration of me stood next to me, or someone else, or a camera, then the golden line of light between my perspective and the sun, would naturally occur relative to those positions. We can ask; if we drew or overlaid all the images together, and of multiple positions all along the riverbank, does that mean the river is golden? Surely the world is drawing all perspectives?..

A further issue arises when we then imagine all the perspective not just of those along the riverbank, but also those from say a spherical view. Because then we would would have a ball of light and not the river and the sunsets. Ultimately, if the artist took the canvas and painted anything, but from all perspectives, she would be left with an empty canvas.

Now this cannot be true, the physical reality cannot be no river and sunset when it is measurably the river and the sunset. The only solution I can reason, is that perspectives must be the physical truth and reality. The collection of perspectives cannot physically exist in the same space as a singular thing, which means you and your perspective reality is a complete and physical universe, which stretches into infinity. It equally means that the world with the river and sunset in it, and which can be viewed by any observer, is a world of shared realities – a contradiction of the former?

What I am missing I think, is that each iteration is an observer observing something, namely the other observers observing something. Then somehow, that means that reality is the ‘something’ in amongst all that [as well as the perspectives]. Everything gets drawn ~ exists, with respect to everything else, and it doesn’t get drawn at once.

Though I am still left wondering in what way that constitutes a physical reality. To my mind, that’s a drawn reality [which is still real] and not a world that’s real on its own. In other words, the physical universe is being drawn.

_

Why infinity?

Where’s the contradiction?

Drawn as in taken from. Reality is subtractive.

Because the universe does stretch there and is infinite. then aside from that, because the meaning here suggests that reality is being drawn and is not the other physical reality people think they exist in. if you attempted to fully draw the world as we formerly imagined it to be, one could not [draw it entirely].

In the first instance we are suggesting that each perspective has its own entire reality, and then we are saying that all perspectives are in the same [shared] reality.

Drawn as in performing the action of drawing [and continually redrawing from all perspective respectively].

_

The empty canvas, as I see it, is not really an emptiness but a fullness–the canvas is white–a mix of all colors–not black, the absence of any color.

The emptiness that Eastern philosophers often talk about is, in my view, everythingness.

Speaking of it as emptiness or nothingness makes one think about 0. In my view, it ought ought to be thought of as 1. 1 is the basic unit of quantity. It can be divided into any sum of fractions one wishes: 1/2 + 1/2, 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4, 1/9 + 8/9, 237 - 236, or whatever. All such mathematical expressions are equivalent to 1. This is like the sum of all individual perspectives. If one sees the golden sun reflecting off a silent river, this is one of the terms in an extremely complex mathematical expression (perhaps an infinite one). When added to all other perspectives and view of reality, it sums to 1. Yes, there is cancellation: 237 - 236 is a cancellation of 236 numerals, but that doesn’t result in 0 per se. There must be something–the basic something–which I think is nicely symbolized by 1.

Now, it may be possible, philosophically speaking, metaphysically speaking, that everythingness somehow equates to nothingness–like a circle closing in on itself–positive infinity meeting up with negative infinity (maybe), but I definitely think that the concept of everythingness, symbolized by 1, is a much better representation of the fundamental reality than nothingness or 0.

Incidentally, there is some science to backup the idea of reality summing to nothingness: amazing scientific discovery: everything = nothing!

In that sense, its more like erasing, or subtractive drawing.

Gib

It is I agree. In the east yes, ‘transparency’ - the Buddhists call it, is also the Tao probably. - the philosophers stone etc.

I agree, the product of everything is one. One thing however is an abstraction of that, so 0 becomes ‘1’ as the integer of infinity. An actual 1 in specific terms does not actually exist, and will always be an abstract. Math itself deals mostly with abstracts, and so I think the only position the new ‘1’ can have is outside of maths. All which means we have to think about physical reality differently.

Indeed; not-a-thing-ness is everything without things = nothing [but as you say it is everything]. When I look at a beautiful old steam engine, I see that beyond its physicality, there are the machinations which can only work because ‘something’ is there, and that is the machine by which the machines works.

That is to ask; what >function< does the blender have? In real terms we have ‘1’ + an ability to blend [given op premise is true/acceptable]. Then as the universe had a beginning, it also has an inverse function which = to create, namely; to manifest from the unmanifest version [which is nothing, but it is in there somehow], to mix in the opposite direction to blend. Now already with only adding the more salient feature in a mere machine, if we add-in all the salient features of all things e.g. art, history, people generally, then that will all exist within the context of the ‘machine’, and I am beginning to see why the ancients referred to it as divine!

We arrive at the question; This ‘engine’ has to be able to draw everything in its place and relative perspective and position, and therefore contains what everything shall be? It has to do that in each and every particular instance [but cannot draw all instances]? Or perhaps it does draw as you infer ‘white light’, and then we only perceive the proportion as relative to our view. Then a given other observer sees the same one entity but in a different way. That makes more sense, but not if we consider it in terms of physics which are not light! I guess those objects have to actually be there, and it is simply the case that reality is drawing what reality is, and not everything.

Interesting. Yea its not a new idea of mine, lol i’ve just combined a number of theories and ‘the artists eye’ into it, so it asks questions.

i’d say it is more like the blender ‘unstitches’ ~ because we end up with everything in a lossless way.

_

I am agreeing with gib here, to a certain extent. The presence of everything cannot equate to the absence of everything.

Being = the presence of nothing

Nothing = the absence of every thing

Everything = the presence of every thing

I thought black had all the colours. i.e… absorbed all light.

New material - the blackest of blacks.

youtu.be/FhRiDsmZMag