Existence and Nonexistence

There would definitely be a dreamlike aspect to the existence of $400,000 in my pocket!

That might just depend on the individual.
For some who exist, there is not much evolution or movement.

The difference between existence and non-existence is within movement.
Existence gives rise to consciousness flow.
Non-existence remains in stagnation at a standstill.

My guess: disbursement widens the range of the effect as it vanishes or as it is reprocessed as part of some other existence.

Is non-existence actually the case or is it more like pre-existence before the recycle? When energy congregates and an event of movement causes manifestation of a form or patternā€¦scratch thatā€¦is everything or anything possible? Iā€™m confusing myself it seems. :-k

Yes, Iā€™m really confused for all of the sudden I donā€™t believe in non-existence.

There is no such thing as nonexistence.

Newton noted that if there is no influence affecting an object in motion, the object remains in motion. That ā€œLaw of Motionā€ was actually an ontological declaration, as were many ā€œlawsā€ of physics. We decide to think in terms of what has affect. And if there is no affecting going on, we declare that ā€œno-thingā€ is there. It is an issue of epistemology in forming a rational ontology (a rational way to think of reality).

The most fundamental truth is that the total sum influence/affect that a thing has is what a thing is. You and every ā€œthingā€ is merely a bundle of influence. Parts of ā€œyouā€ influence other parts of you and thus are established as ā€œpartsā€. The total of you influences whatever is surrounding you. Without any influence occurring, there is no you. You would not exist.

It is a breach in ontology to suggest that the lack of a thing caused an effect. The lack of a thing, by definition is the lack of its affect or influence. It can be said that because there was not a particular thing present to have affect, the other things maintained their affect without interference. When there is no influence affecting an object in motion, the object remains in motion.

If that rubs you wrong ā€¦ argue it with Newton. :sunglasses:

What could ever stop energy from being in motion?

Our perceptions of what constitutes energy and its movements are not necessarily accurate or whole, so how is there a no thing if everything in existence is energy moving? To us, there may seem to be no affect.

[In the mood to ramble: I should include the past, present, and future all at once occurs elsewhere (I mean time seems to stop here in the Earth realm) for there is no change elsewhere other than in oneā€™s very conscious memories being replayed, the memories housed in your soul, your seat of consciousness. Oneā€™s memories are the currency of time in other dimensions, but there is nothing to measure thoughts against so far as I can tell there, one only knows that through thoughts time passed in the having of them, but to what degree/amount/length(not sure which word qualifies as precise)ā€¦who knows.]

Influence changes forms but when one form of influence seems to vanish, you do not vanish. Non-existence is a fantasy. No one and no thing ceases to exist so why the question?

Why our memories are erased may be a godsend to keep us as sane as possible throughout infinity.

Backup a little. Energy is not a ā€œthingā€, despite modern implications. Energy is an ability, like a skill or intelligence are abilities. Energy can change and on infinitesimal levels always does. The potential or ability gets changed as actual minuscule things change position. An apple on a lower branch of a tree has a different energy potential than the exact same mass of apple on a higher branch of the same tree. As the tree grows or sways, their energy changes. Energy is a matter of situation, where things are relative to each other. And if things do not move from where they are and do not change what they are, the energy involved would not change either. But then on a ultra minuscule scale literally all things are always changing and moving position.

By definition, neither past nor future exists. Only the consequences of the past and thoughts of the future exist. The past leaves consequences in the physical called ā€œstate of motionā€ and in the mind called ā€œmemoriesā€. The future is but a concept, with no physical reality at all.

Space movement, planetary orbits, Earthā€™s rotation is considered ultra minuscule?

Why is energy not a thing in density/concentration, power/force, longevity, constant speed? The combination of yet unidentified types of energy do not make up matter?

If no future, then how have I dreamed of the future? Did I manifest itā€™s eventuality with my will? I willed you, matter, and tomorrowā€™s events. Your will aided me, but I did the lionā€™s share of making energy potent enough to create patterns/forms.

Iā€™m going to call my abilityā€¦dimensional reflections. I have officially become the Big Sky Mama. Yes, I must razz you, JSS. :evilfun: :laughing:

ā€¦sigh ā€¦ The presence of one (microscopic) does not negate the presence of the other (macroscopic).

Energy is a state, specifically of potential (ā€œto do workā€). The energy within a mass particle is not doing work, but capable of being freed to do work. The substance of the universe, Affectance, is the ultra-minuscule changing of that potential, even within the particle. All physicality is formed of Affectance. Energy is the consequential state (aka ā€œPtAā€, Potential-to-Affect).

They are not ā€œunidentifiedā€. They are ultra minuscule EMR pulses and waves, ā€œAffectanceā€. The EMR is released when diverted from its natural aggregation (subatomic annihilation).

A prediction of what the present will someday become, is not in itself, the ā€œfutureā€. The future is the present that has not yet formed.

It is your ability to ā€œpredictā€ or ā€œsenseā€ the present that has not yet come to exist.

That not ā€œunidentifiedā€ is bologna and you are only considering what is so far recognized in this dimension which isnā€™t whatā€™s important. If you can identify the location of your soul in your human anatomy and identify what that body consists of, Iā€™ll print off my words and eat them. My printer is on. :evilfun:

James

Let me see if I have this right - because this would appear to be an important piece of missing information to me.

Consequential indicates following as a result or effect. So you are therefore saying that the PtA has to be built up first before it can affect.

Well that makes sense to me.

With GOD being the cause then it becomes a domino effect of sorts.

Simply existing, it has built up PtAā€¦God power.

WendyDarling

Hmm . . . I guess that is one way of putting it.

I think this is bound to:

The Real God ā‰” The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = ā€œThe situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it isā€.

Here is my drastically simplified example just to get things rolling:

We have two variables: A & B

B is the initial state of PtA and is Zero

A contains, well, lets say two - it whacks B with two.

B now contains a PtA of two as a consequence of being whacked by A

This example is a domino effect - an illusion - because - ā€œThe situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it isā€. B would have to whack A back.

RM:AO accounts for the illusion I have created here - B goes on to affect C because it has PtA that was given to it from A as a consequence of being whacked.

If you combined what I mentioned as PtA existence, then added the PtA domino effect, wouldnā€™t that be a double layered eventuality accounting for unforeseen affects, what some call random or chaotic results?

Are you trying to break my brain?

:laughing:

Seriously though . . . I am currently working on a logic example:

The double layer in my example is in metaspace - so it is not a part of our space. There is only one active layer in our space. Random ? . . Wendy, I am still thinking about how to answer a question you once asked me about that . . . I donā€™t like the idea of random - let us just say that.

My brain hurts . . .

:smiley:

I also kind of messed my example up to begin with, I am working on it.

:smiley:

We have two variables: A & B

B is in the initial state of PtA = Zero

A contains, well, lets say two - it whacks B with two.

B is now in a state of PtA = two, as a consequence of being whacked by A

B goes on to affect C and C goes on to affect D et cetera - it is all linear at this point. However we are talking about a 3D space so to provide an example for that is a little bit more time consuming.

I only said random due to our predicted outcomes being off for no explainable reason (Think of Star Trekā€™s Spock giving the odds in percentages of something going as expected or not as expected, outcome probabilities). Random may be merely a poor or small perspective.

Random is useful in talking about things - especially when we have to begin an example. Predicted outcomes would be off through lack of precision I imagine. Probabilities are also useful but only to make good guesses. Does GOD really throw dice?

PtA would have to be ā€œbuilt up firstā€ if you started with nothingness. But guess what ā€¦

PtA precedes Affectance, but also affect precedes PtA. They have both always existed and eternally cause the other. There was no ā€œfirstā€.

PtA is never zero. That would be the state of nonexistence, nothingness - a fantasy.

How ā€œunforeseenā€ depends upon who is seeing. But the complexity does increase to the point of unpredictability. Information retention and utility is always limited.

Absolutely not. Only creatures gamble.

James

Man I am already aware of the ZERO thing - as I stated in Reality 0.1 - Let us break a rule and use infinite homogeneity as a convenience.

That is right.

Yup. Because anything without physical affect cannot physically exist.

That is exactly what I was going for . . .

I broke the rule and used infinite homogeneity as a convenience. There cannot not be ZERO outcomes - when there is ZERO - infinity outcomes are plausible and we know that is not the case - so to start with one outcome less than infinity is more plausible and we know with the universe there are even more outcomes than that.

Localized outcomes.