[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY That's it exactly. Mohan. When we merge physics and metaphysics, the absolute values can no longer exist. All of them are considered fractional and infinitely-reducible; like a hole can be reduced to an infinite number of smaller holes, and a solid into an infinite number of smaller solids. So the metaphysical absolute can be likened to the state of the universe either consisting of just a hole or just a solid - both the absolutely empty state and absolutely full state are the exact same impenetrable state. Needless to say, this absolute state doesn't and can't exist, and therefore I propose only relative states exist. Yet, because the relative states must exist within something in order to exist, and there is no existent container for them to exist in, I conclude that the relative states are an illusion of time; where time is created by slowing down, or rather extracting measured velocities from absolute speed. It is a very simple time-dependent theory, that has potential because only finite amounts are needed and "nothing" is the equivalent of the whole amount - again, even beyond infinite energy, mass, space, time, etc.. We need not extract unobservable everything, or an unobservable infinite amount, only extract the observable finite amount in the proper fashion.

Thanks a million for that NOBODY,
I got your point i think. That idea is great.
But thinking of it logically it means there is no absolute one and there is no absolute zero. So can it mean there isn't everything in this universe but neither is there nothing. There is something that hasn't yet reached perfection it is still not absolute not yet complete.

[N0B0DY]

I think so, Mohan, but I would say that something is like Edgar Poe's "All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream."

It's a dream that can turn into a nightmare if the mind doesn't have the perfect knowledge of all consequences in order to perfect the dream made "real."

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Ok Michael I will neither accept it or reject it, Then lets just assume there was a peddler who started a cycle. What kind of a cycle do you think it is, A cycle of life, a cycle of thought???? What could it be A cycle of creation and annihilation or a big cycle of growth in which each part has to grow to make the whole thing grow??? What could it be????

Mohan my friend,you are a true traveler of the way,one day I will shake you by the hand
and treat you to a glass of lassi!

An interesting question,what kind of cycle?I accept and embrace the idea and concept
of an evolutionary cycle,one that has an ever upward arc,but does come to an end,then,
after a long pause begins again,only with the expansions,(developments)somehow imprinted within its matrix,so that this next cycle there will be a step forward and upward
ever onward towards realized perfection,which will take many cycles.or great breaths of
Brahman!

regards michael.

[Sapius]

.
Mohan;

Yeah may be there can be an eternal repeating cycle. But someone must have started it. A cycle cannot start going itself. someone should peddle it first?

If energy cannot “die’, then how and when could have it be “born”? It couldn’t have come from absolutely nothing, isn’t it? And if it came from say anything “outside” of it, then THAT would have to necessarily be a part of “IT”, otherwise an interaction wouldn't be possible. The cycle is only the movement/change in and of say two interactively opposing forces, in which any extreme or Absolute state on the either end of the scale cannot be reached, and the moment point critical is reached, it “collapses” to recycle again. This happens all the time, at infinitesimal and on much larger scale as in say a big bang. What is death of any thing but a collapse of its temporarily held state, in and of any causally created moment of the here and NOW?

But isnt it again the same. Whether we consider time or distance its all same. They are both relativistic. And time is also just a measure of distance(Actually that is how I've understood time as the fourth dimension. Time as a measure of distance). But to consider the creation of forward time from no time. Then absolute speed is enough, i mean the speed of light and it isn't infinite.

Time is but the measure of relative rate of change. Are you considering it as a measure of distance because we also use it as a measure of distance where extremely large distances are involved? Numbers in miles or kilometers would be extremely large, so it is easier to calculate or express the distances in light-years; that is the distance light travels in one year. (It’s been a long time since I was at school, and I was not that good at memorizing such things any ways, so someone else could give you the exact speed light travels at, or goggle it)

.

[Sapius]

.
Nobody;

Needless to say, this absolute state doesn't and can't exist, and therefore I propose only relative states exist.

I agree.

Yet, because the relative states must exist within something in order to exist, and there is no existent container for them to exist in, I conclude that the relative states are an illusion of time; where time is created by slowing down, or rather extracting measured velocities from absolute speed.

If you have concluded that ONLY relative states exist, then that leaves no room for “yet”.

If you conclude that relative states are an illusion, then how Absolute is the speed of light which is but relative to our observational limitations? Further more, when you say, “there is no existent container for them (relativity) to exist in”, to which I agree, then there cannot be an Absolute vantage point against which relativity itself could be seen or measured from, in an Absolute sense.

.

[Sapius]

.
Mohan;

But thinking of it logically it means there is no absolute one and there is no absolute zero. So can it mean there isn't everything in this universe but neither is there nothing. There is something that hasn't yet reached perfection it is still not absolute not yet complete.

I think this needs be given a little more thought. “Neither this nor that” is a contradiction too, in my opinion. Things are exactly what they are, in any given moment of the Now; just as I am that I am, nothing more, nothing less.

.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by Sapius . Mohan; If energy cannot “die’, then how and when could have it be “born”? It couldn’t have come from absolutely nothing, isn’t it? And if it came from say anything “outside” of it, then THAT would have to necessarily be a part of “IT”, otherwise an interaction wouldn't be possible. The cycle is only the movement/change in and of say two interactively opposing forces, in which any extreme or Absolute state on the either end of the scale cannot be reached, and the moment point critical is reached, it “collapses” to recycle again. This happens all the time, at infinitesimal and on much larger scale as in say a big bang. What is death of any thing but a collapse of its temporarily held state, in and of any causally created moment of the here and NOW? Time is but the measure of relative rate of change. Are you considering it as a measure of distance because we also use it as a measure of distance where extremely large distances are involved? Numbers in miles or kilometers would be extremely large, so it is easier to calculate or express the distances in light-years; that is the distance light travels in one year. (It’s been a long time since I was at school, and I was not that good at memorizing such things any ways, so someone else could give you the exact speed light travels at, or goggle it) .

I think i'll come back to the first part of your post later. I know about the light years Sapius, I am not confused about that.
The fundamental unit of time is the interval occupied by 9,192,631,770 cycles of a certain radiation emmited by a caesium-133 atom. Well I think I know what you are going to say its just a unit.
Its like thins,I can say a city lies 140 km away or i can as well say its a 3 1/2 hour drive if i go at a steady speed of 40 kmph. Here for example i took 40 kmph as absolute its constant.
But if we take the speed of the light as the constant then time would also be relative because speed is also relative.
Or we can slow down time but putting a weak battery in the watch..lol...

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by Sapius .Further more, when you say, “there is no existent container for them (relativity) to exist in”, to which I agree, then there cannot be an Absolute vantage point against which relativity itself could be seen or measured from, in an Absolute sense.

This latter part sums up my premise, Sapius. There is no absolute vantage point, which is why I often express it in terms of "what would be" instead of what is. So we can think in terms of you existing in a necessary room or exterior space, and infer that if this requisite room or space is non-existent from what would be the absolute perspective, that everything thought to be existent within the abstract container doesn't exist.

Ultimately, reality is an illusion and there is no other reality.

[Sapius]

.
Mohan,

But if we take the speed of the light as the constant then time would also be relative because speed is also relative. Or we can slow down time but putting a weak battery in the watch..lol...

I don’t know if we could literally slow down time, but surely time beets at different rates in different worlds. For example, it is not the same for an insect as for us, nor it is same for an elephant. In fact I believe, multiple dimensions are here and now, just that we don’t pay much attention to it. On the other hand we could travel faster, and you know what that does to time.

.

[Sapius]

.
Nobody,

So we can think in terms of you existing in a necessary room or exterior space, and infer that if this requisite room or space is non-existent from what would be the absolute perspective, that everything thought to be existent within the abstract container doesn't exist. Ultimately, reality is an illusion and there is no other reality.

I understand what you are saying, and I thought of giving my twist on the difference between abstraction and the empirical, but I would like you to define ‘reality’ in the above context first.

You see, if ‘illusion’ is ‘reality’, than it is JUST THAT, and simply IS, for then it is neither, and nothing can be said about it except IS. IT has absolutely no external vantage point at all, but since it is not nothing whatsoever, each point in and of totality becomes an “objective” vantage point, for everything then becomes relative to it rather than the other way around, because on the other end of it, there is no end at all.

To give you an idea of totality’s possible extent, our big bang could well be but a bubble amongst infinite number of big-bang bubbles; we may just not be equipped to see that possibility, and such infinite number of bubbles may well be on a single dimensional belt, and may be totality needs more than one belt to keep its pants on, and who knows how many legs or pants it has, and on and on and on… I know it is hard to imagine, but that is logically possible. This is what is implied when one says there is no “external” vantage point, and it begins from every quantum point outwards, endlessly, be it from any point at all. Hard to even imagine, let alone have evidence. Right?

This might not make much sense, but I tend to think more complexly than I can describe. My bad really.

.