Nobody, Quote
"It can be semi-accurately likened to a blank white canvas (without holes) that already contains all pictures, because white contains all colors and all points are covered." End Quote.
Nobody, have you ever seen a color wheel with which children often play? A color wheel is a round, flat disc made of paper or cardboard. The outer edge is painted or colored with stripes for each of the seven colors of the rainbow: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo. and violet.
When the wheel is spun quickly, the colors blend and turn into white. Thus, as it spins at high speeds, one only sees a pure white wheel with no hint of any of the rainbow colors. Children are often amazed at how all the colors can turn into white. But what they do not realize is that it is the other way around.
It is white light that is the only color, but through a process of dispersion, it breaks up into the different colors of the rainbow. Each color has its own wavelength. As light passes through different materials, those substances reflect light at various wavelengths, giving the appearance of different colors. But there is only one color - pure light.
The Light of God (pure white Light), is pure consciousness. It is all consciousness. It is actually love itself. When we get in tune with that we will be bathed in all Love, Light, consciousness, and bliss. We experience a happiness and ecstasy beyond any we can know in this world. We find that our true essence as soul is love and ecstasy. This is the true Light never seen on land or sea. "Enlightenment."
Nobody, have you ever seen a color wheel with which children often play? A color wheel is a round, flat disc made of paper or cardboard. The outer edge is painted or colored with stripes for each of the seven colors of the rainbow: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo. and violet.
Thank you, Infinite Consciousness for delivering this reply to Nobody; I'd say it shows my position, too.
But first let me thank you, Nobody, for delivering an answer that I can grasp much better, and my apologies if I had to push you a bit here and there. We do agree for the most parts, I now know, and I do think the problem is mainly a linguistic problem. You confuse me when using words such as 'non-existence.' I should try harder to be a better reader, but I fall short sometimes in that department.
If I would use your example of the blank white canvas, I would make one alteration: a blank gray canvas. The reason I would do so is that gray contains the 1 (white) and the 0 (black), while not giving up its absolute space to an absolute 1 or 0 — these latter options do not exist and cannot exist, but gray can be absolute (for it contains both/all). I think you can see that we are therefore in agreement. Gray would also be a better 'color' for it does contain the colors mentioned by Infinite Consciousness, but is not bound to a perfect state as white would be (only a few very specific color hues on color wheels actually lead to white), allowing for all variations and hues to occur. And yet by most people's standards, gray is considered the least important color of them all. Some would even call it a non-color.
Words are important, but words are just vehicles, easily understood when explained properly. When you say that "things aren't created and the absolute universe doesn't exist," what do you mean with the first part that things aren't created?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
At heaven’s birth, positive energy
Became matter—countered by gravity,
Whose attractive embrace was negative;
So, still, their sum adds up to nullity.
Thus from nothing was written our account,
And to nothing we’ll still have to amount;
But in between those two parentheses
The pluses rain on us from Heaven’s fount.
Your posting reminds me of some of the first renditions of creation, Austin, where male and female principles come together to create heaven and earth, and good and evil. Of course the holy spirit being the result of the universe overcoming its evil side. There are some interpretations of God as being both good and evil, being the cause of everything, and through the death of god overcoming chaotic hell to perfect the orderly heaven.
I would say that things are not created, Fredrick, because mental constructs are not universally tangible entities. They are only abstracts perceived as physical realities by abstract minds. Sort of like not realizing your life is just a dream, because you're in it.
Gray is fine, as you said it includes all the colors of IC's color-wheel analogy, and also includes white and black which is the point I was trying to make. The pure consciousness that you suggest exists, IC, is synonymous to pure white or pure black, but pure white or black don't exist - both white and black are varying degrees of gray. Even the whitest of perceivable whites contains black, and vice-versa, which renders both as shades of gray. We can say that pure or perfect white or black can be equated like the absolute one and zero, which don't and can't exist, and I infer that state as the gateway to perfection, not as a state of eternal bliss.
Again, differentiation is required for relative states to exist, and the absolute because it is not and cannot be differentiated, does not and cannot exist. The perfect state is then relative, but is based on the perfect knowledge of the recorded information of all possible temporal consequencess and therefore can use the imperfect to eternally maintain perfection - sort of like recycling the natural to transcend nature.
Ultimately, there is the imperfect, the perfect, and the gateway to perfection which is a merge of imperfect existence with non-existence to be "born again" into perfect existence - not physical either, but a new dream beyond even the capacity of an infinite imagination, based on absolute knowledge.
I then understand the buddhistic concept of nirvana to be transitional, and only a bridge that has the capacity to marry all religions into a religion of no religion. All religions, being based on ego trips and/or manifesting destinies of the powers that be, are unnecessary.
I don't see too much I can disagree with anymore, Nobody. I am happy with your further explanations, for I can see clearer now how you are using your language to portray the overall picture. Of course I say things with other words, but it looks pretty much the same (as I had hoped for). TX.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Between
Nonexistence (Nothing)
and
Existence (Real Substance)
0) Complexity rules, but simplicity seems to underlie, so I will try to become simple-minded in this analysis of the simple beginnings of everything!
1) Nonexistence can’t exist. It can’t even “try”, for it is not there and nothing could become of it. There is not even potential—no pseudo wave crests and troughs that could cancel out.
2) So, therefore, due to (1), some think that real substance has to exist, but how could it, for real substance (in the way that we know “real”), could not make itself or know what would work.
3) So, we retreat to saying that it is just there, existing, not having come from anywhere, and, although this could be almost “sensible”, for reasons unknown, if there were more than one kind of real substance (avoiding the undifferentiable “one”), it is still seems improbable and nonsensical to say something(s) could just have always been.
4) Perhaps, if it had always been, the few real substances were those that facilitated appearances and movement, leading to our being of past (rememberings), now (sensations), and future (anticipations) of appearances; however, again, it is not a defensible answer to say that real substances have no antecedent. Perhaps substance has an antecedent that is not substance.
5) Furthermore, why would the real substances that were always there have been the right stuff for us to evolve from?
Why not some dud inert stuff that went nowhere? Again, no defense, for there seem to be many more arrangements that would fail than those that would succeed.
6) Therefore, the startling inference must likely be that there must be a possibility that is more than nothing but less than real substance! How could there be a middle ground? Because there has to be!
7) One good answer is Nobody’s, that the “one” couldn’t move, so it couldn’t exist, and that “nothing” can’t exist—and so all is relatively constructed by the subconscious, itself relative as well, from the instantaneous forward light and backward gravity, all granted from the one and only freedom, which is to have the sum positive of negative force amount to zero—within which the whole of relative reality is enjoyed by us.
But perhaps there is something real in another way from what we know as real, something called Possibility, which needs no antecedent, since that would only be possibility itself; so, it is kind of like everything at once, but at a simple level, there being no rules of time, space, light, etc. to restrict it, that is, there was complete and ultimate freedom of possibility, and this could have generated the substance of reality, some of it useless and collapsing, and some of it useful and staying around and forming ever greater complexities.
9) This Possibility is not a complex composite mind and so there was no way it could know how to produce the right stuff that would lead to our being or even to anything stable; it was not “smart” like the most probable outcome of quantum superposition, or “brilliant” like our subconscious mind that sifts through scenarios of consequences to present the right path to consciousness (at least to the learned), but tried everything (not that much at its simple level), and still does so as we speak.
10) I am speaking of Possibility as the lowest level of reality, lower than the quantum substrate (if there is one), lower than quarks (if they exists), lower than strings (if they exist); maybe it didn’t even form our kind of substance, but another intermediary such as the space of quantum foam.
Note: Some strangeness of what we think of as real: There is no light as we know it out there, all bright and illuminating, only what we make of what’s behind it in our “dark” heads. What is lit in REM dreams is the same as what is lit in waking reality. The same for scents, forms, sounds, and everything else, but I am still referring to it as substance even if it’s just a clumping of waves or interference patterns, for what can be manipulated as real is real to us and I have to call it something.
So, is there any other way out or am I just a dream trying to figure out a dream? Trying to use imagination.
I would have posted this in the new “Cause” forum, so consider it there as well, but this thread of nothing seems to go on forever…
Nothing(L) (in logical terms) is the null set - represented by the symbol 'Ø'.
Nothing(A) (in the abstract) is 'that which does not exist'.
But, 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It isn't the empty set. It's not a set at all.
To consider Nothing(A) would be not to consider.
To perceive Nothing(A) would be not to perceive.
To understand Nothing(A) would be not to understand.
Nothing(A) neither has nor lacks attributes. It is neither present nor is it absent. (Editors Note: If you think you understand the preceding sentence, please go back and re-read it until you are absolutely certain that you don't. Thank you.)
Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Logic requires definition. Nothing - in the abstract context - is undefined. It doesn't exist. It is a fiction which has no physical manifestation in the Universe. Within the realm of logic Nothing is not 'non-existence', it is the existence of the null set - the value of 'Ø'.
Nothing(L) (in logical terms) is the null set - represented by the symbol 'Ø'.
Nothing(A) (in the abstract) is 'that which does not exist'.
But, 'that which does not exist' doesn't exist. It isn't the empty set. It's not a set at all.
To consider Nothing(A) would be not to consider.
To perceive Nothing(A) would be not to perceive.
To understand Nothing(A) would be not to understand.
Nothing(A) neither has nor lacks attributes. It is neither present nor is it absent. (Editors Note: If you think you understand the preceding sentence, please go back and re-read it until you are absolutely certain that you don't. Thank you.)
Imagine an inert, infinitesimal point in space - and then try to imagine that same point NOT in space. Logic requires definition. Nothing - in the abstract context - is undefined. It doesn't exist. It is a fiction which has no physical manifestation in the Universe. Within the realm of logic Nothing is not 'non-existence', it is the existence of the null set - the value of 'Ø'.
Thank you Thor and Austin for your deliveries. Thor, I am definitively on Austin's side, for one good reason: I have mathematical evidence that nothing is always there. Before you respond, I'd like you to take this in, because it is quite an almost contradictory statement. That what does not exist, always exists. Naturally, the language gets in the way here, because the first exist is different from the second exist. The second exist means: always present. If you want to quickly look at this from a mathematical point: both binary and decimal systems have a zero in them; the zero is present in both systems.
The reason I have been asking Nobody all these (hopefully not too annoying) questions, was to find out if he and I indeed have the same overall image in mind. This turns out to be true. But I am then left with a question why my mathematical evidence is not used better by him as evidence for the constructs we both seem to share. When Nobody writes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY
... no one has enough knowledge to create the correct construct.
that does not make too much sense to me.
If I had an idea in my mind, and someone would come up to me and said "Well, there is actually evidence for that" then I would be very happy. Nobody, can you tell me why you have not used my mathematical information?
As before, I will keep the math page available for two weeks:
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Thank you Thor and Austin for your deliveries. Thor, I am definitively on Austin's side, for one good reason: I have mathematical evidence that nothing is always there. Before you respond, I'd like you to take this in, because it is quite an almost contradictory statement. That what does not exist, always exists. Naturally, the language gets in the way here, because the first exist is different from the second exist. The second exist means: always present. If you want to quickly look at this from a mathematical point: both binary and decimal systems have a zero in them; the zero is present in both systems.
The reason I have been asking Nobody all these (hopefully not too annoying) questions, was to find out if he and I indeed have the same overall image in mind. This turns out to be true. But I am then left with a question why my mathematical evidence is not used better by him as evidence for the constructs we both seem to share. When Nobody writes:
that does not make too much sense to me.
If I had an idea in my mind, and someone would come up to me and said "Well, there is actually evidence for that" then I would be very happy. Nobody, can you tell me why you have not used my mathematical information?
As before, I will keep the math page available for two weeks:
For every qualitative value there exists an opposite equivalent. That necessary but indefinite primordial element we call "nothing" is simply an abstract interpretation of the symmetrical balance that pervades the structure of the Universe. The existence of nothing requires no justification - it is essentially natural and intrinsically logical. Nothing is, in fact, the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum and it is the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system.
But perhaps there is something real in another way from what we know as real, something called Possibility, which needs no antecedent, since that would only be possibility itself; so, it is kind of like everything at once, but at a simple level, there being no rules of time, space, light, etc. to restrict it, that is, there was complete and ultimate freedom of possibility, and this could have generated the substance of reality, some of it useless and collapsing, and some of it useful and staying around and forming ever greater complexities. 
Linear Mode
