Singular thinking and its captivating condition.

[Fredrick]

Much information is available that either directly supports or points to an overall Incompleteness. This does not mean that completeness cannot exist; it only means completeness is not the standard for the overall framework of our universe. But how do we recognize the reality of incompleteness, and how do we store this information within our brains?

The intention of this thread is to share knowledge and information about our thinking on singularity and non-singularity, and it has as goal to make the patterns of our own ways of overall thinking visible.

As introduction, three frameworks/positions are mentioned about our understanding of the reality in which we exist, though some could argue there are four.

The singular framework is a framework in which a singular highest position is considered natural. Imagine the word universe and this word capturing everything there is. With this word we have mastered an overall condition and that from now on can reside within our thinking as the highest possible state. The singular word represents the overall singular state. If so desired, dark matter/energy can be included in this word. Singularity is all-inclusive.

The dual framework is a framework in which duality is considered to exist within everything natural. Where there is male, there is female, where there is large there is small, where there is everything, there is nothing. Imagine the words good and evil, and we have mastered an overall position within our thinking in which one position is good and the other is not; this thinking can reside within us as the deepest possible state. With words of a dual nature, we provide a way within our thinking that can be seen as the overall state of affairs. If so desired, materialization and non-matter can be included in this thinking. Duality contains an aspect of exclusion or separation.

The plural framework is a framework in which various singular positions as culminations are considered to exist, but in which none can be better/higher/deeper than another at the overall level because the specific best positions are all based on non-comparative conditions. Consider the words loudest, coldest, and longest with which a variety of words are given that each declares something most-specific but in which each has a basis that is not the same as the basis for the other words. In this thinking we have mastered the overall state in which there is no singular most important state at the overall level nor does duality provide a qualitative framework among these positions.

The fourth framework is a framework in which all other frameworks are considered to be true at the same time. It does not add anything in specific itself, yet it is capable of leading to a different outcome nevertheless. In nature, sometimes that what is bad can be an improvement over the competition nevertheless, and over time this can become seen as good instead. We can argue that the dual framework can lead to this fourth framework, or that the fourth framework is a special condition of the dual framework itself.

This thread is open to all, but when asked to substantiate or clarify one's words, each individual must do so to the best of their knowledge. Contributors are expected to follow regular ToeQuest rules.

[labelwench]

You have provided excellent structure in the wording of your starting post, and in the designations of frameworks and the criteria that pertain to each as basis for a discussion. Your presentation, concise but with sufficient detail and a willingness to answer questions is one that I am comfortable with.

First I must give some deliberation as to the direction of a dialogue with you. I shall return.

This is something useful to ponder for a night or two.

Thank you for an interesting thread starter.

[SteveA]

My assumption is that fundamentally everything exists (and likely this includes things that might, on the surface appear to be paradoxical), though I believe we experience only the subset of this that is compatible with oneself, though someone is not necessarily well described as even a singular thing as the body has various components that need to interact compatibly and pressure for some circumstances versus others and the mind, emotions, perceptions etc. can contain diverse components as well.

I believe that we could even have both evolution and creation true simultaneously but that things can be interpreted different ways depending upon which "direction" of time or as some objective cause and effect chain we're looking at.

In many quite tangible and verifiable ways, only the continually present moment exists. When it comes to describing some "logical trajectory" that passes through the moment as it is now, there are actually many ways that this same moment could be "reached".

Something else to consider is that I believe we see the past as valuable in terms of its equivalent inertial influence - a logical continuity is assumed to span from the direction of the past and continue on into the future and this allows us to assume a predictable structure exists that we can "navigate" through life by - the belief that specific actions cause specific effects and this I assume is desired to exist in order that we can have a manner to control circumstances to our own satisfaction.

It's interesting to consider that there could be multiple sets of such rules that remain compatible in their ability to construct the present moment though and it would appear unlikely that any form of external 3rd party could be involved in imposing which of these is specifically true at any moment. Of course if a desire to retain a coherent relationship with past events remains, then only those sets of rules by which a continuity across those experiences remains would appear available, but it's interesting to consider that there are divergences possible in not simply how the future progresses but that even the present moment could be seen as an intersection of many possible timelines with different histories that can compatibly merge within ones present moment of experience (so instead of a point on a line, we could see the present moment as a point at the intersection of multiple pathways and "radiating" different possibilities both in terms of past and future - how much do we really know with precision about the past? Realistically, most people know a miniscule fraction of events that have "truly" transpired and history books are rewritten all the time - it could be worth looking at how we could get to the same point now, but by passing through a direction entirely different than most conventional views)

[austintorn@aol.com]

If All were “One”, then not anything could even move, it being solid; however, the most opposite case, one containing the ultimate freedom of movement, is of everything being separate—so separate that they couldn’t be any more separate and different, for they would be opposites, which is possible if the All is the Balance of Nothing; All equals Zero. This would be the singularity of existence, occurring at the midpoint of infinite largeness and infinite smallness.

[Fredrick]

Impressive first responses by all three, I will say. I like that you, Labelwench, beat the others to the punch, but next you take in a very Labelwench-specific position of not revealing the inner life of your immediate thoughts on this. I hope you can stand my teasing you here. In reality I am quite impressed with your open-mindedness, and to create an additional tease, your open-mindedness is captivating. What I am trying to deliver with this thread is showing how each of us (myself included) takes in a singular position, no matter how complex our deliveries may get, and that even the position of awaiting what is to follow is a singular position. But most certainly it is one I admire.

I recognize a theme as well in Steve's reply in which the position of oneself is central, but admittedly not that easily captured and therefore spun out in details, in this case making use of time observations. Clever, because complex, but nevertheless singular in positioning, because where you appoint yourself is still the question mark itself, Steve. You hide it with you. As an immediate counter, I would say that one cannot declare something in general (and thus make this applicable to another person) if we can only experience the subset of what is compatible with oneself. This is a contradiction in terms as you provide them. And I would additionally say, it is rather easy in the abstract to overcome the restrictions of oneself or one's subset, with the abstractions being truthful representations of reality — of the abstract kind. Though scientifically, it cannot be determined if one person is more capable of exact empathy from the inside out than another person, absence of scientific evidence is nevertheless not scientific evidence of absence. One cannot take in that general position unless one has declared oneself all-knowledgable in this specific respect. The contradiction is contained within the person's words. God's position (the singular position) is contained though hidden within the words.

And Austin, you hit the nail right where it should be hit — I'd expect no less of you. But if you had said that materialization is the expression of the ever-balancing All in all its disconnected facets, then I'd taken my hat off right away.

I hope you don't mind me being facetious here — teasing you — and that my inflicting this horrific pain on you is easily overcome with a smile on your faces. If not, then at least forgive me my transgressions. Meanwhile I'll try working on the first post with the singular framework in mind.

[Fredrick]

While the singular, dual, plural or fourth frameworks can overlap, state the same, or push each other out of the way on most subject matters, they should each be seen as framework specific basics. If we agree that at the overall level incompleteness is the norm, then there is no surprise that the frameworks each can be considered on their own basic terms.

Let's explore the first one — the Singular Framework — and view/discuss its own terms.

For this single-most important of frameworks, it is good to know that there is not much to be said about it when looking for anything next to it. The most important aspect of this framework is that all is contained within it.

Words that come to mind are: universe, god, everything, the whole enchillada, anything that exists between yesterday and tomorrow. Let's be honest and admit that we understand these words without much difficulty. The difficulty lies only in precisely proclaiming what these words entail in detail.

Inside our minds, we have somehow given a position to the overall position, and since we consider this position a logical position we do not challenge it. Within the abstract, we have no problem envisioning 1 as the single 1 that indicates all that there is. And yet, no one has been said to have seen it all (and then actually meaning All). But it is undeniable: our mind is indeed capable of seeing 1. This should not be confused with the 1 of unit, or the 1 of 'on' (versus 'off'), nor the 1 as in 'Jesus', 'Neo' or 'Yorteoys' — but as the 1 as in everything.

If we agree that in the beginning before our universe a singular state existed (either 'made' of an overall singular entity or of a happenstance temporarily-collective singular state), then we can probably also agree that such state no longer exists. If we were to use the word god for this 'initial' state, then we do no longer have such a god today. I hope we can all agree to the premise and the resulting conclusion. What once was, no longer exists as such. Even when we agree that there was a singular moment/state, do we then also agree that the singular state is not of our reality today? But we also agree we can envision the singular state without a problem, true?

There are various ways for the singular framework to be activated. One can claim the singular position, for instance, to be taken in by god (a deity of the singular stature), or one can claim such deity to not exist. I hope you see that both answers are singular answers, both are answers of the singular framework. An atheist may not have given the full answer with that declaration, since denying something is not identical to taking in an exact overall position, but such an answer is given in light of the professed singular position nevertheless. As soon as a counter position is taken in about the whole, the counter position is also of the singular framework. "It is not!" "Yes, I agree." "No, it is not." You can test this by answering the idea in the plural (you would not answer "No, there are not" to the statement that there is a god), and you will quickly realize that the negative of a proclaimed singular state is also of a singular nature (even when not specifically declared otherwise). Bingo, you're caught in the singular framework. You may profess the oppositional position, but that position is about the singular state nevertheless.

Let me try to make you think about other historical events about singular realities. What is your reaction to the ancient Egyptians declaring Akhenaten and Nefertiti crazy for believing in a single god? They were pharaohs and were therefore worshiped by their people as such, but as soon as they were out-of-the-picture, close to everything they created was destroyed. Does it make sense to you that these ancient people rejected the singular overall position, or do you consider these ancient Egyptians as not that well developed yet? Was their response based on logic (their logic), or did they respond immaturely?

Will you investigate within yourself what the actual basis is for having an overall position within your brain and your brain not having a problem with that. Please note that it is not my intention to rid ourselves of the singular state within our thinking. The goal is mainly to help us identify the position itself.

And then, when looking at all words that are all-encompassing, you may notice that the word science is not there. Science is by itself not a word of an overall meaning. Rather, it is a position, a specific position on how to view everything. Science does itself not belong to the level of Everything.

I'd like to open this for discussion. In how far can we distinguish a Singular Framework and it actually being there? In how far can this framework be used; how often do we use it; what are its limitations; do we recognize it when we move from one framework to another in our conversations/arguments? Examples, ideas, philosophies — all is welcome.

[SteveA]

I recognize a theme as well in Steve's reply in which the position of oneself is central, but admittedly not that easily captured and therefore spun out in details, in this case making use of time observations.

I do this as a partial attempt to avoid hypocracy and emphasize that when we someone else or people or the universe etc. is referenced, these are concepts that one has regarding them. I see many political conflicts arise because these generalizations are taken literally and this ends up with misrepresentations that are seen as real.

For example, what is the only 'universe' that I can refer to? It would be nothing more than encapsulated by me and my life and it includes nothing or noone else beyond this and similarly, if someone else refers to England, they're referring to what I believe to be their conception of what they believe to be England and it's not literally a physical place. If we're standing somewhere talking, that's the surrounding physical reality.

It should be clear that when someone, including myself, says something like "France agrees to trade deal" that this is highly abstracted away from meaning that a large number of people living in the area someone might consider as France to all be in agreement regarding this.

Clever, because complex, but nevertheless singular in positioning, because where you appoint yourself is still the question mark itself, Steve. You hide it with you. As an immediate counter, I would say that one cannot declare something in general (and thus make this applicable to another person) if we can only experience the subset of what is compatible with oneself.

Actually, your "counter" appears to be agreement (and thank you for the "clever" compliment I do put a bit of effort into trying to get my views to be consistent and it would be a shame if those efforts had been largely wasted).

Notice that in order for us to be considered equal in some respect, one must assume their own condition is true for another as well, but this is asymmetric and not equal. One could even attempt to use someone elses assumptions or beliefs, but it remains asymmetrical in that, once again, this is using ones assumptions regarding what those are.

It appears asymmetry and hierarchy are unavoidable when we refer to anything specific and that things freely determine their own circumstances. We could try to avoid this by referring to something all inclusive but this once again is just a construction by ones beliefs regarding what that refers to and an equality or symmetry cannot be created by imposing this either.

Every thing is its own absolute dictator, IMO, not that my opinion matters to anything else, of course, as it's simply mine and the reason I believe that to be true is that it fundamentally allows independence, freedom and time to exist. We're here not because anything external forced things to be this way, but instead because that's simply how it's enjoyed and that arises from ones own values - if there's anything that's externally imposed it's what those values are ... but that's basically the same as ones own existence. It appears better to have something than nothing (of course that could be an externally imposed value - if so, it's a tricky one and appears best left in place ... some sacrifices might be worth making) and if something "else" is preferred, well "else" is very nonspecific and could likely deserve a closer inspection as to what that is ... notice that attempt to define what that "else" would be, would appear to be nothing more than a subset of what one already possesses in that respect, and it would still most likely be defined by values applied to the selection of that. The closest thing to "randomness" that appears to exist is a creative growth, and the possibility of something completely undetermined by anything here and now is a highly convoluted paradox that appears to go nowhere and resembles creative aspects instead, so the existence of such a thing appears beyond any coherent thought.

This is a contradiction in terms as you provide them. And I would additionally say, it is rather easy in the abstract to overcome the restrictions of oneself or one's subset, with the abstractions being truthful representations of reality — of the abstract kind.

I think time and change defies a logical mechanism to describe and in that sense, there's a continual (expansion) of experience into the equivalent of an "external" space, though it would seem that this space should preexist this expansion and so there are two perspectives to it, yes, it can be seen as a continual "becoming" in time from one perspective and this could be seen as the construction of unique perspectives that in some ways could have never existed before except as an unwitnessed space of possibilities/potential - the controlled aspects of this would appear to be the elements combined into a unique present configuration with the existence of some unknown supply of these prexisting any of that (basically that's how I believe experiences of time arise - one has the capability to access new properties from likely a preexisting but unknown source, and these are similar to unique conscious letters of experience. These can then be arranged into the equivalent of a language which is much like a space with specific properties, though these elements remain finite and so do the configurations and controllable aspects of any of those spaces. Though new elements/aspects of experience are available, in themself they don't possess any specific value, rules of interaction etc. except what someone desires/assigns/believes them to be, so in many ways the evolution of these could be seen to reflect properties of oneself and those values, but logically it would appear there's no way to assign these as identical, otherwise there's no change so it appears a continual source of growth is available and this contains unknown aspects of experience, though not necessarily with a specifically defined external value.

The only "long term winning strategy" appears to be simply an appreciation of that creative side.

Though scientifically, it cannot be determined if one person is more capable of exact empathy from the inside out than another person, absence of scientific evidence is nevertheless not scientific evidence of absence. One cannot take in that general position unless one has declared oneself all-knowledgable in this specific respect. The contradiction is contained within the person's words. God's position (the singular position) is contained though hidden within the words.

I have a feeling you either do or will realize that true equality is impossible, unless it's simply a voluntary constructing of lots of inequalities.

There's no manner to force something to be equal - the imposition creates a dependent inequality. The closest that one can get appears to arise in a "hands free" manner as possible (and that can be quite difficult to do).

To whatever extent I've succeeded, my statements here are just my attempt to most accurately represent what logic appears to imply. It's not specifically good or bad ... it's just how things appear they must be in order that things as they could appear to be possible.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I am making an attempt to explain everything using just space and geometry.

First of all, space is real, for its existential quantity is volume. Space is physical, but not material, per sey; however, its warps, deflections, and curvature (all are the same thing) give rise to what we call "material", or mass-energy.

So, what about time? It is the difference of space (the motion), and, conversely, space is the difference of time (the distance), if you want to look at it that way, but space is the more primary of the two.


TOE geometry, using only space and its curves:


Existence:

The “quantity” of space is volume (not quality). What exists has quantity. No quantity; no existence.


Time:

Time is the difference of space (motion. energy); space is the difference of time (distance). Energy is curved space.


The Point:

Points are physical, not abstractions. They have no properties except of position relative to other points. (The simplest things are the most important things.)

A point is shapeless, a consequence of infinite smallness (just as the universe of infinite largeness has no boundary).

The cosmic size scale has points at one end and infinite volume at the other.

In a way, the large may be the same as the small, for there are only two directions away from finiteness, infinite largeness and infinite smallness, each perhaps leading to nothing, one by dispersion to zero and the other by compactness to zero, although the universe truly has neither a floor nor a ceiling. At any rate, we are perched in between in our finiteness.

Zero and infinity cause many of the same problems in algebra, but are kind of two different viewpoints of the same thing. Particle physicists are ever trying to reconcile the macro and the micro.


Big Bang:

The concept of space-time rushing outward in a rapid initial expansion, called the Big Bang, has some problems: Expanding into what exactly? A region already present by definition?


Space:

Space is infinite. This is not math, but a property of the universe (the one and only). It has closure. All action remain within the unbounded universe. This is also called completeness.

Space’s three dimensions are equivalent, due to symmetry; thus, space is shapless, indicating a flat space-time geometry, not open (saddle shaped) or closed (spherical).

The totality of the universe may be cubic, although not a cube as such, for it has no boundary.



More points (and reality):

The superposition of any number of points at the same position is indistinguisable from a single point. All a point has is its position relative to other points (a relation necessarily dimensional); it has no intrinsic properties. Space is composed of points since a point is composed of points.

The only states of reality are existence, which must be finite, and nonexistence, which must be infinite (a Nothing is).

Nonexistence is by definition composed of itself regardless of the distribution.

The number of points at any given position in space is the same as the number of positions in space itself. All points are copies of the same singularity—the same cosmic point. Points are still 3-D, even though of an infinitely small size.

Space is continuous because a point is continuous.

FIniteness is the magnitude of size lying precisely halfway between the limits of infinitely large and small, being the product of the two limits—unity:

(in 1-dimensional space)

Infinity times zero = 1

(as in the Reimann sphere)

(To understand the above,
suppose largeness was one hundred meters
and smallness was one hundredth of a meter;
then, one one hundred meters times one-hundreth =1)


Surface boundaries:

Any (N+1) dimensional region can be bounded by an infinitely thin N-dimensional surface.

A 2-D circle is bounded by an infinitely thin 1-D line.

A 3-D sphere is bounded by an infinite thin 2-D area.

In our universe, there are no boundaries along its 3-spacial-dimensions.

*** This means space is not a bounded interior region; it is a bounding “surface” ***

Unbounded space is the boundary surface of its own totality. Bounding surfaces are themselves unbounded.

The exterior of infinite largeness bounds the infinitely small interior of infinite smallness, an inescapable consequence of closure—closure being the level of existence where the large becomes indistinguishable from the small, both merging into the singularity of totality.

Imagine an enormous sphere in space, growing progressively more immense. As long as its volume remains finite, it is a three-dimensional object with a two-dimensional surface. When its volume reaches infinity, its three-dimensional interior is now the surface by which it is bounded. The sphere becomes inverted just as infinite smallness and largeness are inverted.



Energy quantization:

Our finite three-dimensional universe fits inside a finite hypercube. Space is infinitely thin along the fourth dimension, an extraspacial metric. Four-dimensional space will be referred to as hyperspace or hypervolume; it defines an absolute size scale; this is why atoms behave differently than galaxies. The finite four-dimensional size of the universe is the boundary condition for energy quantization, which will be referred to as unit hypervolume.

Planck’s constant, ‘h’, has units of energy-time; energy density, ‘D’, has units of energy/distance^3; the speed of light, ‘c’, has units of distance/time; ‘A’ is a unitless constant of proportionality defined by the way the energy of individual photons is geometrically distributed into space—it will be called the photon hyperscaling factor.

Hypervolume = A (hc/D) = A (E, w(wavelength) ) / D)

We see that the units of hc/D are:

(energy*time * distance/time) / (energy/distance^3)

Giving

(energy*distance) * (distance^3/energy) = distance^4

(not even having to deal with the units of energy for the moment!)

Planck’s constant is four-dimensional because energy is three-dimensional, which makes sense because energy is spread throughout space and because energy density (circumstantial, it varies) is finite—and the only way the ratio of energy to space can be finite is if both share a similar dimensionality.

The fourth dimension is profoundly different from space; it is the universe’s closure dimension.

The speed of light is not a universal constant; in fact, it is a ratio—of distance and time—not a quantity in and of itself. More spectacularly, we will see that ‘c’, (d/t), is the existential ratio of space to energy (d^3 / td^2) = d/t.

Unit hypervolume is the one and only connection between the micro and the macro universe because it is the finiteness that of necessity exists at the midpoint of the universal size scale.

There are only two stable particles, the electron(+) and the proton (+), because there are only two ways to make them. (A photon is neutral since its has both a positive and a negative aspect).

Speaking of space… and only space…

A Balance of Nothing Theory:

It’s not so much that Totality came from nothing, but that it is Nothing—a distributed form. In the overview, it sums to nothing, as Gamow told Einstein, causing him to almost be run over by a car.

It never was an absolute nothing, nor can it ever collapse or amount to nothing, for it must ever jiggle in and out of existence as the quantum fluctuations, ever balancing as oppositely charged matter and antimatter, this Balance of Nothing showing up also as Hawking’s cancellation of positive kinetic energy versus the negative gravitational potential energy, or as bi-verses.

The Big Bang, if there was one, did not create all of Totality, for what did it expand into? A region already there by definition as part of a larger continuum? Still, bangs are not of any special time or place, and so they don’t just happen once, but can happen again and again. They are probably due to some low probability events and/or chain reactions that eventually must happen—if we wait long enough—and there is ever eternity’s waiting room.

There can be no beginnings or boundaries for Totality—or it wouldn’t be the All, as something could have been outside it or before it. What could be its prime mover?

0) The only candidate for a prime mover that is both infinite and eternal is Nothing, however much we seek out others, for, 1) stuff from stuff leads to an infinite regress, and 2) “forever stuff” is much too magical, it being already made without ever having been made.

Charge is probably what divides Totality into its opposite havles—nullifying all of existence via its summation to zero. Yet, as told, Nothing must ever distribute itself in a balance; it would indeed take a God to hold Nothing intact. As the simplest state, it is indeed perfectly unstable—and thus can’t exist absolutely even for a zillo-second.

Even the near-nothing states prove to have little stability and readily go through phase changes and so forth, and so on, the continuing complexity reaching on up to where we are; so, the Theory of Everything has to be simple, and so it is: Nothing. We really didn’t expect to find a great complexity sitting at the opposite end of the spectrum, way down there.

Now, some may still vote for stuff having been around forever, versus of Nothing; but, either way, creation of Totality (and a Creator) is completely ruled out.

There is perhaps only space and curved space(gravity and energy-mass greatly curved in time), time being the difference in space (which is, more or less, mass-energy).

I am thinking of the 4-D hypersphere having two 3-D halves of opposite polarity (charge) which, of course, nullifies 4-D Totality in the overview (the Balance of Nothing).

The 4-D hyper-construct must be finite, this being the one and only one boundary condition; 3-D space would be the infinite “surface” of the finite 4-D construct.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Implications of Infinity and Eternity

Such as it is very likely that there are other Earths exactly the same as ours. As we will see, the universe retains its own history and future.

The All, meaning Totality, as we know, cannot be bounded (or it wouldn’t be the ALL), and so its extent must be infinite. Nor can it have a beginning, for then, again, it wouldn’t be the All, and so it must be eternal.

In an infinite eternal place, which I will call the universe, every possible combination of matter and energy (unstructured matter) exists, not only right now, even many times over (due to infinity), but ever will and did, even many more times over (due to eternity).

Since the Earth (and everything known) is a part of ‘possible’, since it is here, there’s no problem with that use of the word ‘possible’. Itﾕs only those things that we don’t know are possible that we can’t say for sure. We’ll have to wait for better computers to figure it out, a daunting task since even a state of one change of one atom requires a precursor form and a series of prior events cascading backwards through infinite time and across infinite space.

However, there is still every possible combination of matter and energy; it’s just the resolution that remains unknown. Think of morphing objects; the resolution is like how many intermediate stages there are (possibly infinite, but who knows).

I am calling this notion ‘supercontinuity’. It says that any object known to us, whether a galaxy, planet, person, or whatever has a prodigious number number of very similar examples in space somewhere, varying along every possible parameter.

This supercontinuity must be true by virtue of the universe’s permutational variability. The only question is what is its resolution: How closely can these (separated) instances of any given type of object resemble each other?

For example, even on Earth, between human races the percentage of DNA separation is less than .1 percent (2% between chimps and humans). There is even a web site where we can look up our so-called ‘doubles’. Identical twins have identical DNA, but differing experiences (so we are not yet at the stage of identicality). To be exactly the same, they would have to have the same molecules and quantum states.

But, heck, there is all of space and all of time; thus, it is very likely, even certain, that at least some intermediate states of a certain resolution exist somewhere at this very moment, and always did and will.

If there is not exactly another Earth, surely there could be one whose only minor difference was one unnoticeable at the atomic level.

So it is that every loved one we have ever lost is alive and well somewhere (as an exact duplicate). Of course, they are separated from us by a humongous distance but are indisputably alive right now; this instant, as they ever were and will be.

Such it is, in a way, that moments are never lost in the infinite eternal universe, for every touchdown pass and first footstep on the moon is still ever happening. Somewhere, dinosaurs roam distant lands just like those of Earth.

The universe contains its own indelible history and future. All moments of every object’s history exist permanently in space, separated by near-infinite distances (if not infinite).

Consider this supercontinuity to be your secular ‘afterlives’, some of which are identical and some for which the narrative may differ. Either way will do, for any narrative will do, but if it is the same, you wouldn’t remember it.

[SteveA]

I'd like to open this for discussion. In how far can we distinguish a Singular Framework and it actually being there? In how far can this framework be used; how often do we use it; what are its limitations; do we recognize it when we move from one framework to another in our conversations/arguments? Examples, ideas, philosophies — all is welcome.

The singular position is logic/structure/form - the non-singular is energetic/creative/temporal and voluntary ... the overlap between these is a dynamic universe of mixing and mingling in countless ways. I guess that's why people say God is love as well as an architect or that God created the integers. The only dictator involved is oneself and what arenas one participates in. Where the overlaps exist are common spaces:



There's a picture of two "selves", the physical universe lies at the sandwiched area in the middle. The only way they can really connect though is by sharing a common unit for that space and for pure quantities (non-descript "void"/volume) that would happen to be the greatest common divisor (GCD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_common_divisor shared between them, though this can be a multidimensional vector. You've likely seen many of these, but here's what the computation of greatest common divisors can look like when projected into 2 dimensions:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post121717

That only describes a mechanism to generate common/shared forms or spaces and doesn't specify the specifics over how these are consciously perceived with various qualities nor the specifics of what dimensions or experience/motion/action are available and those appear to be likely unique properties provided by individuals. It could be that these are collectively contributed ... I don't know, though it would at least appear that the capability for any of this to be seen as existing for anything would simply have to be an innate ability. It doesn't appear a perception of time could be imposed upon anything and that observers can have their own unique version of it.