T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

I have traveled the universe,
It has never talked to me.
One says universal mind,
I say, it doesn't exist.

Sometimes the loud mental chatter of the ego blocks out the universal voice, Lloyd. How do you know it's not speaking to you now?

There is only one possible faith, like there is only one possible absolute, negation of the "I," then things are said and done according to the universal will.

There's an old samurai saying: "the time it takes for one to think about what to do, is the time it takes for one to die."

Mushin - no mind - is the universal mind, but I guess we're all too busy saying and doing what we think we should say and do.

[Aimtb]

I have traveled the universe,
It has never talked to me.
One says universal mind,
I say, it doesn't exist.

regards,

I have that Ienstein quote too. But I will have to make an adjustment to his statement. "Time is the mode in which we think and space is the mode in which we experience", since thought is a measurement of the experience or I could say since time is a measurement of space or thought is a measurement of space or time is a measurement of the experience....man there are so many ways to "BABEL".

[N0B0DY]

I have that Ienstein quote too. But I will have to make an adjustment to his statement. "Time is the mode in which we think and space is the mode in which we experience", since thought is a measurement of the experience or I could say since time is a measurement of space or thought is a measurement of space or time is a measurement of the experience....man there are so many ways to "BABEL".

If God made time and space, what exactly is God?

It's difficualt to build a tower without time and space.

[Aimtb]

The story of Babel is a message which is not to be taken leterally. What I was going to say "that there are so many ways to say the same thing". And that is why the people didn't understand each other. For example: the first man to discover a cat calls it a cat, and the second man to see a cat calls it a pussy. Because they have both given the animal a different name doesn't mean that it is a different animal.
I believe that Space during the day is a metaphor for God. I do not believe that God is a supreme being. I do not believe that God is one- meant that the God with the name God is God. I believe that God is one (1 or number 1 or any number being a measurement of infinity) means that God is physical too. God is love meant that God is emotional. Therefore I believe that God is both the physical and the emotional. Therefore I believe that God is both one and infinity. Therefore I believe that God is both thought and experience. Therefore I believe that God is both thought or infinity....etc.
But I do not believe that you can be both at the same time. because infinity is not inside one. And one is not infinite. I do not believe that one is more important than the other and I certainly do not believe that one was created before the other. If it makes you have have positive thoughts (better thoughts)....a different thought being better than another different thought.......for the religious type, I could say that "God created both at the same time and made them both equal and different or equal and changing or same and different.

[sillysally]

Not being able to make sense of philosophy, I dont feel like I belong on this page. But oh well, it might be page 30 when I post it.

God is love meant that God is emotional. Therefore I believe that God is both the physical and the emotional.

Minus the tears, there are no tears with God. Perfect love does not hurt. Try using baby shampoo for the time being, it will make you feel closer to God.

[Aimtb]

I believe that God is not better or worse than he was before.

And not one part is better than another part that is different.

And therefore the feeling which is in a different time is different than it was before but I do not mean better or worse. Infinity is only equal to itself. And therefore the feeling is only equal to itself. And that which is equal is the same. And therefore the feeling which is equal to itself is always in a different time but is the same since it is equal.
And not one part of the different time is better that another part of the different time.
And the different time all happens at once.
And the same goes for thoughts.
They happen at the same time as everything happens.
And not one is better than another thought that is different.
And therefore our thoughts and experiences are only equal to themselves. And are not better than they were before, or worse than they will ever be.
Since one part of God can never be worse or better. If one part is worse than it was before than God is not perfect. And if one part is better than God was not perfect ..etc. "Babel....ling again" lol.

[mkirkpatrick]

The theory of nothing is more than it is less,or less than it is more?When all is said and done,what will be left?Nothing or something,that will emerge from nothing!




regards michael.

[Eric]

Not exactly, because non-existence isn't an existence. Rather I'm saying that existence, any existence, is the basis for relativity with the true axis being non-dimensional/non-existent.

So is there a difference between absolute nothing and non-existence?

If there isn't, then there is something absolute. The "existence" you refer to. Not just any existence, but initial existence (time not implied).

Yes, it doesn't have any dimension or axis.

...relative and absolute are opposites according to the dictionary. So 1 must be relative, and 0 must be absolute; existence is relative, and non-existence is the only absolute. If we say "one" is absolute, there is one and nothing else - dual; but if we say "none" is absolute, there is none and nothing else - non-dual.

I agree that initial existence can't be relative. But if non-existence doesn't exist, then let's not even give it a 0. It doesn't deserve any consideration at all. The 0 gives it too much credit. Let's save the 0 for later.

Deriving 1 from 0 is old-school. It can't be done. Infinity precludes it. .9999 ad infinitum, is all that can happen. If as you say, there is none and nothing else, then you can't get to 1 either.

An absolute 1, however, isn't derived. There is no non-existence or even a 0 to derive it from. It just exists. It is non-dual.

But then to derive a 0 from this 1, can't be done old-school either. .0000 ad infinitum 1 is the closest one can get. And that's not close at all. It's impossible. Again, infinity gets in the way.

The 0 has to be derived as inside the 1 and be as you say, its opposite.

There is a way to do this, but it's not conventional.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sometimes the loud mental chatter of the ego blocks out the universal voice, Lloyd. How do you know it's not speaking to you now?

There is only one possible faith, like there is only one possible absolute, negation of the "I," then things are said and done according to the universal will.

There's an old samurai saying: "the time it takes for one to think about what to do, is the time it takes for one to die."

Mushin - no mind - is the universal mind, but I guess we're all too busy saying and doing what we think we should say and do.

Nobody, I stopped considering the "Great White Pumpkin", the talking/thinking head in the sky, when I was 13. I now know the world and universe as the "randomness of evolution", the state of no mind producing spirit and mind in the bio-era.

"Spirit and matter___The greater can always produce the lesser. The lesser can never produce the greater. Matter is scientifically the greater substance than spirit. This is true even to spiritists." me

regards,

[N0B0DY]

So is there a difference between absolute nothing and non-existence? If there isn't, then there is something absolute. The "existence" you refer to. Not just any existence, but initial existence (time not implied).

I don't get what you mean, Eric. Initial existence without time is like a cake without ingredients. I've made reference to both existence and non existence as being eternal, yet existence by its very existing nature creates a dichotomy paradox by its prerequisite relative measurement in order for (?) to exist . We both know that absolute and relative are opposites, and therefore we can't speak of existence in absolute terms. Which is why I remain to proclaim that only non existence is absolute or, if you prefer, absolutes don't exist.

Relativity as an absolute, which is what I gathered from Lloyd's and Dave's inference of absolute motion, is more than less absurd in my mind because they are contradictory terms. Sort of like "the only constant is change."

Deriving 1 from 0 is old-school. It can't be done. Infinity precludes it. .9999 ad infinitum, is all that can happen. If as you say, there is none and nothing else, then you can't get to 1 either.

Exactly my argument, Eric. Both 1 and 0 don't and can't exist. They are, ironically, the same non-existent state. So relativity, infinity/infinite-infinitesimal, is all that exists. Yet exists as an abstraction because every possible measurement posits an equal and opposite measurement when considered as whole, outside of our linear timeframes.

An absolute 1, however, isn't derived. There is no non-existence or even a 0 to derive it from. It just exists. It is non-dual.

I don't think this is true, again, because a "1" can be doubled, halved, etc.; but the 0 can't.

But then to derive a 0 from this 1, can't be done old-school either. .0000 ad infinitum 1 is the closest one can get. And that's not close at all. It's impossible. Again, infinity gets in the way.

I agree, so then can we agree that there is no such thing as 1 or 0?

The 0 has to be derived as inside the 1 and be as you say, its opposite. There is a way to do this, but it's not conventional.

Unconventional is fine. What do you propose?