Page 1 of 2

### Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:57 am
Enter at own risk to sanity. Here is something we can argue about.

First there is nothing - secondly inside this nothing there is infinity - it is infinity that fills the void of nothing.

This gives us zero(nothing) and one(infinity)

Apparently infinity is 99.99% empty but still infinite.

The left over 0.00, . . . . . ,1 tells us that infinity can not know itself.

Now with infinity and zero we are able to create infinite combinations of "stuff", obviously not all at once or we would be approaching entropy. This "stuff" is in many combinations called things like selves, planets, stars etc. all of which blends back into infinity at different times and arises from infinity at different times.

Now we have Zero, One, Stuff(Duality) - as easy as 1, 2, 3

So stuff is just combinations that exist inside the infinite(one) and the infinite exists inside the nothing(zero). Higher combinations go above the Duality but are constituted of the said duality and further of the chain of existence.

Chain of existence(reality) = zero + one -> stuff contained within.

Go for it!

Now for a fairy-tale ending - when infinity knows itself it is annihilated by nothing - no more stuff. To be reborn into the same configuration mentioned above. This is because of the collapse that entropy brings about fighting the ultimate order. A duality exists from the onset.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:24 am
I feel like I'm constrained between two simple and false ideas :

Atheism :
Creationism :

Who holds the real answers?

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:58 am
Dan~ wrote:I feel like I'm constrained between two simple and false ideas :

Atheism :
Creationism :

Who holds the real answers?

Yes - that is how I feel - on one hand I feel like there is a creator and on the other hand I feel like there is no creator. I certainly hold no real answers. I am just torn in a reality where both sides of the argument make some sense but cannot be reconciled - or can they?

In a moment of inspiration a while back I was able to reconcile the discreet with the linear - hopefully I can do that again and present it here.

In the meantime I am torn to know where a creator fits into it all unless it is like MIB where Will Smith opens the locker to find a little world inside.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:11 am
encode_decode wrote:First there is nothing...

What makes you think so?

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:36 am
Just a toy. I am playing with a toy thought.
What makes you think so?

Wouldn't infinity have to be able to fill "something" and that perfect "something" be "nothing"?

Do I actually believe this? Not really. I think there is more to it than that. I am happy to be the one defending it.

I present here a simple toy that we can throw at each other or knock each other out with.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 3:57 am
encode_decode wrote:Just a toy. I am playing with a toy thought.
What makes you think so?

Wouldn't infinity have to be able to fill "something"

"Infinite" merely means "endless". There is no actual "infinity". That word is used merely as a euphemism for a misplaced idea.

encode_decode wrote:..and that perfect "something" be "nothing"?

To be "perfect" is to match 100% something or some concept. There is no "perfect", save it be only in concept.

encode_decode wrote:Do I actually believe this? Not really. I think there is more to it than that.

Good start.
encode_decode wrote:I am happy to be the one defending it.

Surely there is something better to do with youth?

encode_decode wrote:I present here a simple toy that we can throw at each other or knock each other out with.

Idle hands .. are ...

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:03 am
I think maybe there is a dimension missing in our consciousness. Things just don't add up as we perceive them now. I don't mean mystical perception, maybe another evolutionary jump in awareness level. Perhaps this could be assisted with technology.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:46 pm
"Infinite" merely means "endless". There is no actual "infinity". That word is used merely as a euphemism for a misplaced idea.

The terms are neither here nor there, and may not be apt for something as vast as reality is. They are just words ~ which are based upon limits, but somehow we have to think of reality as one vast thing. How would you describe one vast thing that is reality? Don’t say affectance because that would be something in that something if it is anything et al. You cannot describe one big thing as a collection of little things, as that doesn’t say what those things are in and we are back to square one.

Pandora wrote:I think maybe there is a dimension missing in our consciousness. Things just don't add up as we perceive them now. I don't mean mystical perception, maybe another evolutionary jump in awareness level. Perhaps this could be assisted with technology.

Interesting, do you think that is a lack of mental prowess or a lack in philosophical definition which explains it?
I’ve been wondering about thins lately, and I think the universe suffers the same problem. It simply cannot fully draw or visualize itself. Even that the said limit is what stops it from stretching into infinity, except that it did begin at being infinite. Hmm something incongruous [or hidden even?] here me thinks.

_

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:17 pm
Amorphos wrote:The terms are neither here nor there, and may not be apt for something as vast as reality is. They are just words ~ which are based upon limits, but somehow we have to think of reality as one vast thing. How would you describe one vast thing that is reality? Don’t say affectance because that would be something in that something if it is anything et al. You cannot describe one big thing as a collection of little things, as that doesn’t say what those things are in and we are back to square one.

I would have to disagree.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:46 am
Amorphos wrote:Interesting, do you think that is a lack of mental prowess or a lack in philosophical definition which explains it?
I think it's a hardware or linguistic problem. Our language, for example, sets our limitations and it's still quite primitive. Optical illusions (or linguistic paradoxes) are an example of this - contradictions.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:11 pm
I think it's a hardware or linguistic problem. Our language, for example, sets our limitations and it's still quite primitive. Optical illusions (or linguistic paradoxes) are an example of this - contradictions.

What if there is nothing wrong with our hardware nor capabilities, but there is something about the limits of existence itself ~ is what I meant. …the limits as to what can be drawn or occur. I do agree though, that our language could do with some advancing or loosening up. Paradoxes happen because we get tongue tied or because reality does.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:17 pm
James S Saint wrote:
encode_decode wrote:First there is nothing...

What makes you think so?

I guess what makes me think this is I always trace everything back to nothing as in zero - perhaps it is the mental burden of mathematics. I do not think there is a minus something first. To me nothing is infinite - nothing is the thing that comes before anything or everything. Where there is nothing there is room to place something.

I am not talking about the indivisible point but rather what we currently call space. If nothing did not come first then space must of come first - but then inside space which must be infinite would be an infinite amount of nothing because you would be able to fit an infinite amount of indivisible points. But if the substance of an indivisible point is not really there then nothing no longer exists either. Would space still exist?

Then I think to myself: Well space - there cannot be inside of space - what contains space - what is the container that holds space. But it seems there can not be outside of space either. So space is a hard problem.

This hurts my head.

You can not put something where something already exists. You can only put something where nothing exists. Space being substance-less then is nothing. Then there is the problem of the apparent medium which exist throughout the space - the propagation medium that allow radio waves to travel.

Unless we have been going about this the whole wrong way and instead we live in a big solid clump.

Maybe energy/matter are able to stretch out into a medium-less space by them-self.

Each direction I take I am met with something that does not quite add up.

I can only surmise that there must be a counter-balance of some sort and that would be "all and nothing". If the universe does not expand then it must be strung like a hammock but in all dimensions - strung to what - you know it messes with the mind and yet still shows itself.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:28 pm
Amorphos wrote:
What if there is nothing wrong with our hardware nor capabilities, but there is something about the limits of existence itself ~ is what I meant. …the limits as to what can be drawn or occur.

encode-decode wrote:If the universe does not expand then it must be strung like a hammock but in all dimensions - strung to what - you know it messes with the mind and yet still shows itself.
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.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:15 pm
though I wouldn't know how we'd go from there (I don't mean to bring in the God factor or supernatural).

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.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:44 am
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.

James S Saint wrote:Surely there is something better to do with youth?

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.

Pandora wrote: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.

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.

Amorphos wrote: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.

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.

encode_decode wrote:I can only surmise that there must be a counter-balance of some sort and that would be "all and nothing".

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

Amorphos wrote:What if there is nothing wrong with our hardware nor capabilities, but there is something about the limits of existence itself ~ is what I meant. …the limits as to what can be drawn or occur. I do agree though, that our language could do with some advancing or loosening up. Paradoxes happen because we get tongue tied or because reality does.

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?

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Tue May 02, 2017 3:23 pm
encode_decode

.... on one hand I feel like there is a creator and on the other hand I feel like there is no creator. I certainly hold no real answers. I am just torn in a reality where both sides of the argument make some sense but cannot be reconciled - or can they?

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?

In the meantime I am torn to know where a creator fits into it all?

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?

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Wed May 03, 2017 9:32 am
Hello Arcturus Descending,

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

Arcturus Descending wrote:How do you define creator? What words come to you? Does the "God" word come to you?

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.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Could that word possibly get in the way?

Yes, possibly.

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

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

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?

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 3:17 pm
encode_decode

Hello Arcturus Descending,

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

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?

AD: How do you define creator? What words come to you? Does the "God" word come to you?

e_d 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.

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?

Whether to believe would partially depend on the context

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"

Arcturus Descending: Could that word possibly get in the way?

Yes, possibly.

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

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

Me too.

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

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

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.

by answering a question that I cannot answer with conviction

What is the question again?

- 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.

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.

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.
https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-halo-effect-279590

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"

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 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?

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.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 8:02 pm
Arcturus Descending

Arcturus Descending wrote:Do you know how to rub two sticks together to start a fire?

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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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?

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

Arcturus Descending wrote: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?

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

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.

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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.

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

Arcturus Descending wrote:What is the question again?

Dont ask me, I am lost.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.

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.

Arcturus Descending wrote: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.

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

Wikipedia wrote:Kitty Gail Ferguson (née Vetter) (born December 16, 1941)[1] is an American science writer, lecturer, and former professional musician.[2]

She has written several science books for lay persons and youth, including books on biographical facts and the social background in which scientific developments have taken place. Her best-known books include biographical works about Stephen Hawking; Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler; and the ancient mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras.

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.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 8:23 pm
Dan~ wrote:Who holds the real answers?

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 1:23 am
James

James S Saint wrote:
Dan~ wrote:Who holds the real answers?

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?

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 2:26 am
encode_decode wrote:
1. What is zero? <<-- a void or lack of whatever the substance
2. What is infinity? <<-- an endlessness (and despite historical flat-earthers, comes in degrees of endlessness)
3. What is stuff? <<-- Affectance, the changing of the changing

...and welcome back.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 3:33 am
James S Saint

James S Saint wrote:
encode_decode wrote:
1. What is zero? <<-- a void or lack of whatever the substance
2. What is infinity? <<-- an endlessness (and despite historical flat-earthers, comes in degrees of endlessness)
3. What is stuff? <<-- Affectance, the changing of the changing

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

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 3:38 am
encode_decode wrote:James S Saint

James S Saint wrote:
encode_decode wrote:1. What is zero? <<-- a void or lack of whatever the substance

1. So a placeholder for something? <<-- not necessarily a place holder, but at least a note that there is nothing substantial there
2. In reality or concept? <<-- Yes.
3. Now we are talking. <<-- Thinking is more important, but Doing is more relevant.

### Re: Reality - Version 0.0

Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 4:05 am
encode_decode wrote:James S Saint

James S Saint wrote:
encode_decode wrote:1. What is zero? <<-- a void or lack of whatever the substance

1. So a placeholder for something? <<-- not necessarily a place holder, but at least a note that there is nothing substantial there
2. In reality or concept? <<-- Yes.
3. Now we are talking. <<-- Thinking is more important, but Doing is more relevant.

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