[Fluent Piffle]

We are very real entities in motion, deceived by our own illusions, metaphors, concepts and beliefs only. Because we are happy to deceive ourselves so easily, we find no problem whatsoever in trying to deceive others. Thus, all conflicts are internal, as they start with self-deception, and hence the need to have a 'scientific method' of understanding the Reality at all.


pif.

[N0B0DY]

"Or it can just be compressed and it would look like a void but it's really full or complete. You choose which one you like, but I think they both mean the same thing."

Perfect explanation, Sally.

[sillysally]

Why do you think it's being avoided? I avoid people but I won't avoid you Nobody.

[N0B0DY]

Depending upon its definition, it can be said to be undetectible. If defined as absolutely full, then there is no differentiation possible to perceive things.

I guess an infinite number of layers of refinement are necessary for reality to be perceived, and those layers would lie between the abstract perspectives of 1 (fullness) and 0 (emptiness).

[sillysally]

I've always thought that 0 holds the same value as 1 (0+1=2). So it has 2 perspectives, like we agree on, full and empty. Can you think of an everyday human analogy that has 2 parts that cancel each other, life and death (full and empty)?

[N0B0DY]

I think that covers the "one and many" problem in a nutshell, Sally, or some might say a nut's hell.

The way I understand it, both life and death would be considered part of the "one" reality, which could be equated with zero - like 1 (life) - 1 (death) = 0. The middle point allows for the transitional carriage of the two, like mass/energy-type deal.

In that respect every part of everyday reality cancels to one or zero.

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I think that covers the "one and many" problem in a nutshell, Sally, or some might say a nut's hell. The way I understand it, both life and death would be considered part of the "one" reality, which could be equated with zero - like 1 (life) - 1 (death) = 0. The middle point allows for the transitional carriage of the two, like mass/energy-type deal. In that respect every part of everyday reality cancels to one or zero.

I just don't get the death part of it, realy I think that's why we should choose one or the other because if we have both life and death, everything is a little meaningless since we might as well all be dead since we eventually will be.

All for nothing, it's no way to live.

That's why I don't see anything wrong with blowing up the world since nobody wants to put an end to death, literally. It appears to be a problem to me or are you ok with being a meaningless nothing (becoming a void, or avoided)? I'd like to think that all human life holds some value, otherwise we wouldn't have brains like the ones we have.

So which would you rather be, alive or dead?

[AntonioLao]

water, water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink since my mouth was sealed by the cosmic void destroyer. In this sense, a void is then analogous to an entrance, a door, a gate of some sort that allows moving from here to there or from there to here. Therefore without void, there is no motion and no existence, the universe would be one solid block of dead matter of infinite density.

[N0B0DY]

I would say always alive, Sally. There being no such escape as death.

We have to be able to keep a little sanity and realize that it is about the fullness of life, not death, but life where there is control. Because driving along with your kids and getting hit and killed by a reckless driver is no way to live either.

As Antonio correctly points out, he's brilliant btw, the void allows for transition

[sillysally]

We just keep coming and going? How come nobody told us? Shouldn't everyone that it's happened to realize this? I mean they would know it inside and out, in fact they would know a lot more about everything too since they've had eternal experience. How come they aren't explaining it?

This place sucks, let's just blow it up or squash it like a cockroach.