Reality - Version 0.0

I guess this is why I’d prefer to bring it back to the mind’s limits. I suppose it’s possible that there are multiple dimensions which overlap, wholly or partially, as may be suggested in the multiverse theory. So you’d have many universes with different laws that may be overlapping thus perhaps causing a slight change in the physical laws and may account for the ‘unexplainable factor’. Something like this, maybe it’s not even bubbles of universe, maybe it’s just layers of dimensions that are different but possibly interactive on some level (like the matrix in Interstellar); though I wouldn’t know how we’d go from there (I don’t mean to bring in the God factor or supernatural).

I also think, that maybe our perception of space and direction is too small, in regard to the “whole” maybe it’s the case that the “whole” loops on itself, in that you may be traveling “forward” but you’d end up traveling in a circle. A circle can be seen as a type of infinity too, right? So, maybe there is no forever forward in a traditional sense. It would be similar to our perception of earth being flat by looking out (or walking) at the horizon, except it may also be in other dimensions, not just spacial dimension. Like a giant infinity loop.

Imho you become one with the oneness [emptiness, philosophers stone, goddess crone, the eternal womb], as it is the base of all things. Being within the base is also like a doorway to anywhere, an universal centre. This is usually achieved in death and is natures way of moving stuff about, you know given death and change it kind of needs that. I do however think there must be some kind of film or layer between that and the existential plane, possibly something in quantum mechanics, and entanglement. When we have quantum computers capable of reading the maths of that, we will be able to move between worlds in the universe and planes of existence as if like taking a single step.

the last paragraph makes sense.

The forum is a melting pot of ideas - the object is to walk away with a healthy outlook after considering all the thoughts that we throw at each other. Sometimes the thoughts of others strengthen our own thoughts even if not especially when we disagree.

There are plenty of better things for me to do but I feel this is relative. Sometimes one has to do mundane things yet there are better things to do that have to wait. I find this sort of thing exercises the mind like a game and provides a reset of sorts.

I like to increase the minds limit by not thinking a particular way and then use focus to formulate consistent thoughts. It is this imagination that has led to invention in the past. I really like your overlapping multiple dimensions and straight away folding dimensions come to mind.

I think there are many layers; some layers are understandable and others are yet to be understandable; I think there is more to it than all of our current models put together.

The messy middle seems to be where all the interesting things take place, even things I do not believe prove to be interesting.

Indeed what if there is nothing wrong with our hardware and capabilities? ; however what if there is no limit to the universe? Like the above mentioned multiverse; I will now present some glue.

Emergence from Convergence

Emergence 1. the process of becoming visible after being concealed. 2. the process of coming into existence or prominence.

Convergence a. (of a number of things) gradually change so as to become similar or develop something in common. b. come together from different directions so as eventually to meet.

So properties of thought that are now hidden from view and people are so sure are different from another persons thought but can not materialize the thought and spend time arguing on precursor thoughts eventually converge and emerge.

Pre-emergent thoughts are converging mental artifacts of the collective cognitive process. Is this not one of the reasons that we talk?

encode_decode

How do you define creator? What words come to you? Does the “God” word come to you?

Could that word possibly get in the way?

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes ~~ by Rumi ~~

“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

I find it doubtful that we will at some point “live along some distant day into the answer” not with our puny brains.
But if we try to force the answers, if we are torn between two answers, maybe we will miss something that might have otherwise come to us. Who knows.

What boggles my mind is the origin of the origin. So fascinating yet so unanswerable, right?

Hello Arcturus Descending,

I hope you are well - I enjoy our little chats.

You ask tough questions.

I am not sure I can define creator in this context.

Creator it the first word that comes to me. Lol. Universe is another one.

Yes the word God does come to me. Whether to believe would partially depend on the context.

Yes, possibly.

I love the quote that you presented and I love the questions themselves.

I think I understand what you are saying - it seems so fascinating - but I do not know if it is unanswerable so I don’t want to lead you up the garden path by answering a question that I cannot answer with conviction - I think that would be unkind to you and I don’t want to be unkind to you because my few interactions that I have experienced with you tell me that you are a likeable person.

I do however like the way your mind works - it seems to me that you really know how to live life in an enjoyable way - I like joy. I am tempted to nickname you “Joy” but I wont because your handle “Arcturus Descending” is a pleasant pair of words to read - is the Arcturus part of your username referring to a star?

:smiley:

encode_decode

Hello, encode_decode. I hope that you too are well. I also enjoy our little chats. Perhaps next time I will bring marshmallows and you can build a fire. Do you know how to rub two sticks together to start a fire?
Bring matches, just in case.
Do you want to know something? I thought of an android when I read your first lines…just the way you presented the words. I have kind of a weird mind. Do androids enjoy things? Did Data enjoy things? :evilfun:

I only wish that I was capable of asking tough questions. That would make me a good philosopher, no?
I only said the above because so many use the word God in this sense. Isn’t “God” too simplistic? But I suppose it works. Everything needs a label, right?

It isn’t so clear to me how you are using the word “believe” here. Are you saying that your belief in a God is dependent on the below? Perhaps not ~~ but perhaps so. But all of the below can lead to a clearer estimation of what God may be but without absolute proof…if any of that made sense.

con·text
ˈkäntekst/Submit
noun
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
“the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending”
synonyms: circumstances, conditions, factors, state of affairs, situation, background, scene, setting More
the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.
“word processing is affected by the context in which words appear”

It may get in the way, for me, because sometimes that’s where it all ends.

Me too.

What being “unanswerable”? The existence of God or of a God which includes every definition that we can give it?
Are you saying that there is a satisfactory answer for the existence of God? One that would give rise to absolute truth and knowledge of this concept which we call a God?
I enjoy garden paths so do not worry about that. I love flowers. :evilfun:

What is the question again?

Why would it be unkind? I’m agnostic. I’ve already gone through the fire and the purging of doubting and struggling and giving up the concept of a personal God or a God which we make in our own image and likeness.
I kind of enjoy the great mystery of it all and it brings that deep black well closer to me in a sense then I have ever experienced.
Rumi is so so cool!

What boggles my mind is how it could have ever come to be. I do not believe in the OT narration. I continue to be stymied. I am constantly made aware of how picayune my brain is when contemplating this thing called God.

:chores-chopwood: :chores-chopwood: :chores-chopwood:
:evilfun:

I can sometimes be a likable person but not always. lol That would depend on the circumstances and what is called for. I can, at other times, be a fierce dragon.
verywell.com/what-is-the-halo-effect-279590 :evilfun:

You would appear to be a very “affirming” kind of person. The world needs that.
I like Joy too. I actually love Joy. That is the middle name of my daughter because I knew from the first moment I saw her that she would give me great joy ~~ but even when she doesn’t lol, she still does.

Nicknaming me Joy would be like calling God “love”. Is truth based on impressions and sensations?

But of course. There was a time when I was “Rising” but I decided to dive into the depths. It all just depends on my inclination.

Arcturus Descending

I can tell you that I know there is an efficient way to do it and an inefficient way. The efficient way involves a a type of bow from memory. I will bring matches, just in case.

Cool. Androids could be made to enjoy things and I vaguely remember an episode or two where Data did indeed experience enjoyment.

I read two more tough questions and one question that would depend on how you were to define a good philosopher.

The concept of GOD is not so clear to me the way that people explain him/her/hermaphrodite/it/etc. My belief in GOD is dependent on there still being many hints out there. Absolute proof . . . interesting notion.

OMG - four more tough questions - flowers are interesting - brings to mind Fibonacci Numbers.

=D>

Dont ask me, I am lost.

:laughing:

My youngest daughter’s middle name is Joy. Isabelle Joy. I will refrain from posting our surname in public however - I can say that it is over two thousand years old and British Celtic in origin.

Astronomy is sadly not my strong suit. I love the heavenly bodies and I probably have enough Physics behind me to get it.

Suffice to say her book: Measuring the Universe - made me feel rather inadequate given it is supposed to be for layman and I still found it tough going - in my defense I was approaching my mid twenties and leaving Aerospace behind for Software Engineering. I might get it better these days though. I know one can be surprised by what one remembers.

Diving into the depths of the mind and reality are my things these days.

:-k

:greetings-wavegreen:

James

I would be very interested in discussing the topic.

While we are discussing the topic I would like us to cover the concept of zero and infinity. I initially use zero and infinity as tools for contrast, to make “stuff” stand out among the background.

I have three questions for you James:

  1. What is zero?
  2. What is infinity?
  3. What is stuff?

:-k

:smiley:

…and welcome back. :sunglasses:

James S Saint

  1. So a placeholder for something?
  2. In reality or concept?
  3. Now we are talking.

:-k

:sunglasses:

:sunglasses:

What initiates the original change(affectance)? Surely it must have always been there.

Yes. Affectance has always existed and always must exist … everywhere. There can be no absolute void anywhere … ever. It is a mathematical impossibility.

James S Saint

I totally agree with you on this - the problem I face is both sides of the coin. How does one go about proving no absolute void? How does one go about proving such a void?

Would it not be important to understand how the both cancel each other out? That understanding would lend credence to such a scenario of something always being there.

:smiley:

@ James: An opinion at this point would even be welcome.

James

I will keep this short and imprecise. You should still be able to catch my gist. You could say it is compressed delta encoding.

[b]∴ Reality - Version 0.0 is impossible.

There can only be Reality - Version 0.000…0001 ∨ PtA.
[/b]
The number of zeros is arbitrary.

because Absolute Homogeneity is impossible as you have proven in your previous post.

:sunglasses:

encode_decode stated:

Other than in mathematics, how do you know for sure nothing exists? Even some particle physicist such as P. Higgs will disagree with you. What used to be considered as a vacuum no longer exists. The term “vacuum” has an entirely different definition today. “Consciousness” is everywhere. Surely consciousness is something rather than nothing.

It is impossible for the human mind to comprehend infinity or something that has always existed, doesn’t end or have a beginning. The same applies to consciousness.

This indicates or suggests you are playing intellectual gymnastics rather than tying to understand something.

eaglerising

First of all let me say: Welcome to the forum.

Intellectual Gymnastics

It would seem so . . . Tell me though, how does a new philosophy come into being? More precisely, how did the first philosophy come into being? The human mind has a hard time comprehending zero too. So does the mathematics exist for a good proof of infinity? Since mathematics can describe nothing. I think it would be just as difficult for the human mind to comprehend what has never existed along with what has always existed. So many interesting questions could be asked.

If necessity is the mother of invention - why are there so many unnecessary things, thoughts … et cetera?

Is not gymnastics more healthy than sitting around?

Look what part of the legacy of P. Higgs will be. What exactly are we going to use the Higgs boson for? I am sure the proposals will be “interesting”.

I have stated: ∴ Reality - Version 0.0 is impossible - because Absolute Homogeneity is impossible as James has proven in his previous post. I understand something because I had no understanding of something - someone came along and explained something that changed my state of no understanding - not too bad for intellectual gymnastics.

Intellectual gymnastics is not the form I always use but this time around it served me well.

Despite all of this, I appreciate your post and I do mean that. My apologies if for some reason my original post has offended you.

:-k

If on the other hand what you are saying is akin to the word “preposterous” then yes my original notion is indeed that.

:smiley:

This is what was originally in my head: You can not place something where something already is - if infinity is the largest something then it must be inside nothing - if an infinity is already in that place then another infinity is not going to fit there. Nothing is known as a placeholder. But what would I know?

:laughing:

Probably nothing.

Vacuum Definition

What is today’s definition of vacuum?

I am truly interested in what you have to say here - as you point out I lack understanding.

“Consciousness” is Everywhere.

This sounds even more interesting to me - care to elaborate?

Thank you for your input eaglerising, I hope to hear back from you soon.

:slight_smile:

[size=85]Social engineering is unkind . . .[/size]
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .
[size=50]Disclaimer . . . While the fine print is often too fine - it is not something that I have invented - so read this at your own risk. No responsibility will be taken for eyestrain.[/size]

endode_decode – Please one question at a time. That way we can stick to the subject at hand and not get sidetracked.

So let’s start with, how do you know with absolute certainty there is nothing? I ask this question because it is impossible for something to come from nothing. Just because you cannot see something doesn’t validate or prove that it doesn’t exist.