[N0B0DY]

"Think of it as neither something nor nothing, as this is what it must be, for nothing cannot exist and something cannot come from nothing."

I think this is the problem with "it," Austin. We can't justifiably claim "it" just "is" if we claim it is not that.

There is a way, though, through reducing the non-existent absolute instance to the rate at which the potential info can be perceived; and in this way essentially have our whole uneaten cake while enjoying a piece of it because we are continually creating the pieces.

[Fluent Piffle]

Being is infinitely relative!



pif.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C I did not mean 'see' literally. Creation or annihilation would be an event. I wonder how it can occur without beginning or end?

Prehaps looking at the term cycle might help? Although they have beginnings and endings
much like your Monsoons,do they not keep repeating themselves?



regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

So can we all agree on the eternal creation-annihilation cycle of infinitely relative beings?

If we can agree that the absolute (?) doesn't exist, then perhaps we can focus on the cause for spacetime interactions that result in the above relative scenario. I Propose that time - slowed down - is the sole determining factor of sensory or conscious reality.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Prehaps looking at the term cycle might help? Although they have beginnings and endings much like your Monsoons,do they not keep repeating themselves? regards michael.

They do keep repeating themselves. But they are not eternal. Nothingness woould be eternal as it does not have any interaction or relation to anything (if nothing exists that is!!)

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY I Propose that time - slowed down - is the sole determining factor of sensory or conscious reality.

Please explain

[Mohan.C]

We are all not suppose to see points because its zero dimension. But two points make a line that is there can be relation between these points. Then can nothing in plural creaate something. (I dint say 'nothings' because it kinda sounds odd)

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C They do keep repeating themselves. But they are not eternal. Nothingness woould be eternal as it does not have any interaction or relation to anything (if nothing exists that is!!)

You can have an eternal repeating cycle Mohan!



regards michael.

[N0B0DY]

I think you're doing better than I could explain it, Mohan. The way I understood your suggestion of nothing being eternal is how I interpret absolute - it's a very fine difference so no biggie.

I like your suggestion of two zero-dimensional points creating a single dimension, but my suggestion of how this is done is by way of time reduction. It is a velocity-dependent line, which is easy enough to fathom if we consider that the universe is at both points simultaneously.

The relational viewpoints relative to both the universe and any observer: from what would be the absolute perspective, we have a single line that is synonymous to the zero-dimensional standpoint of the observer; and from the observer's perspective, we have two zero-dimensional reference points.

It takes no time for the universe to the other point that creates the line of travel; but it takes a finite amount of time for the observer to traverse the length of the line, unless the observer reduces his/her speed infinitely which then translates into eternity.

[Mohan.C]

can there be negative speeds I dont know, may be it can be if time can be reversed.
But if there should be time reduction then shouldnt the speed become infinitely large. To cancel the relativeness of the observer and the universe then wouldn't it be better to travel with the speed of the universe which cover the distance in no time at all.