T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[r.p.bibra]

Fredrick you seem to have strange notions about god and godesses! Brother IC could put some light on the subject to make your point more spcecific and clear!with love& regards.ls.

[Fredrick]

Fredrick you seem to have strange notions about god and godesses! Brother IC could put some light on the subject to make your point more spcecific and clear!with love& regards.ls.

I have not met brother IC yet. He may have something interesting to tell. What is his perspective, RP?

[Fredrick]

I am very surprised that we haven't simply agreed to agree that the undifferentiable singular "state" of existence is non-existent, and that it contextually has nothing (not the "nothing" as a something else) to do with scientific and mathematical constructs.
So the best we can do is realize for ourselves what we are referring to and not referring to, and now that I think of it it really shouldn't be all that difficult.

Nobody, it is not at all difficult, for we have been understanding each other in most respects. It is only in the words and the final overall image that we bump into each other. If we ended our conversation here, I'd still be very satisfied.

In my post — in which I describe the 4 frameworks of the one ultimate singular view, the two ultimate non-singular views with/without divine aspects, and the one view that ultimately we cannot know — I show you how I look at you. I am placing your words in one or several of these frameworks.

And you are not at all easy to catch in just one of them. What is interesting is that you seem to incorporate all of them somehow, but my conclusion then is that you incorporate them all at your own pleasing. We agree that singularity does not exist, yet somehow you are trying to find/create a single overall delivery. Here I keep saying that that is not possible because singularity does not exist. Somehow you accept the fact that singularity does not exist, yet you hold on to a singular framework in which all fits. Correct me if I am wrong, but your overall framework appears to be quite singular in its nature.

Where I reject the singular overall framework, I find myself still accepting of it — not as the framework, but as one of the frameworks people can choose, believe in, follow. I will therefore mention the singular framework as one of the four (five) frameworks. I can see it as one of the 4 choices, but it cannot take the overall position all by itself. An example in different words: red may be the color that truly represents singularity, but it is only one of the colors.

Then, when I look at your delivery, I also notice many similarities with the agnostic framework, where our reality is/not is (was/not was). My words seem to be emptied when I try to follow you, the meaning of the words is no longer the meaning of the words. I can't follow anyone there, because I would be forced to stop communicating when words are too corrupt to use. I have nothing against agnostics, I just have nothing to say to them for they have declared themselves knowingly not-knowing-full. That makes for short conversations.

The framework you seem to like the least is the framework of science (not in the respect of you not using the scientific information of that framework, but the framework itself). It is a framework that has indeed not much space for the divine or the fantasy, only dry theorizing is allowed within strict boundaries. (My favorite, though I readily admit that I am not good at using it.)

That's my beef, Nobody. You hold on to an overall singular view, while rejecting the singular aspect nevertheless. As described in other posts, I see you do something double that contains a contradiction, one not allowed.

[N0B0DY]

You're right, Fredrick. It is contradictory when expressed in words, like saying "nothing exists" when attempting to state that neither everything nor nothing doesn't exist. It is similar to "the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao" except that the eternal tao is representative of the eternally real.

Most people cling to things, real things, and when interpreting the above wisdom, they neglect the unreal gateway - wu chi. The "way" is not something that can be understood, but to be trusted completely through wu wei. The only true faith is egolessness, because all else comes from either you or others.

My single delivery doesn't and can't exist because the single "one" is synonymous to the "none." There is no overall delivery because that non state cannot be broken in order to be explained - to know it would be to know the consequences of all actions. So we give half truths to lead others to their own inner realizations where all the searching, outward and inward, is abandoned, which is the reason I'm here. To frustrate people to the point of living life instead of trying to understand life, so people will give up wanting to be god, or wanting to "know the mind of god," and just trust in god.

Ultimately, there is no singular view. Your view is as good as mine, and they're both wrong. They are like the relative frames that are relative to each other and to the non-existent absolute frame at the absolute center of all frames. Meaning that neither the relative frames nor the absolute frame exist.

All views are illusions of confusion bred by the time it takes to perpetuate this satanic cosmic game, and only god (non existence) can end it because it has already ended in no time. Then (the grand contradictory statement) we can all live happily ever after on Krypton, where everyone follows the rules (law) embedded in our immortal DNA.

That last comment was for you, Austin.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks, Nobody. Hope to run into you on Krypton next time around. Meanwhile, we have to struggle with what we have and hope for those rare times when we are “in the zone”.

The Eternal Infinite –> Radiates through a DNA-like matrix –> perhaps using Information or energy –> forms the CBR antenna –> which broadcasts interference patterns of virtual reality waves, even our own DNA and brain –> that are tuned in to by us somehow, or has direct access, and is presented to our consciousness as reality.

Please do what you can to adjust the CBR antenna, but please don’t touch anything else while you’re there!

(Have to drive to New Jersey now.)

[N0B0DY]

Very intelligent posting, Austin.

Enjoy your drive, and may the farce be with you.

[Fredrick]

Thank you, Nobody, for your last post. I think we finally see each other eye(s) to eye(s). It has been good for me to spar with you. There are some aspects on which we disagree fundamentally (I think I have a more positive view on everything than you, even when there is indeed no ultimate resolve — not even one coming from the gods — to the existence of our universe), but we definitively belong to the same quadrant. I hope to see you around on subject matters that are (and aren't).

Fredrick

[N0B0DY]

There's positivity of its own accord, and negativity of its own accord. The way is neutral and irrespective of persons.

[Fredrick]

Two remarks are in place, Nobody.

One is that we cannot take the ego out of the picture and then say we have achieved full delivery.

The other is that your delivery is not a neutral view.

[N0B0DY]

Exactly, Fredrick, no delivery can be neutral and egoless. The gateway is neutral and irrespective of personal views and deliveries.

My claim is merely that the toe, unification of forces, all-inclusive delivery, absolute, can't exist because if it did it would be differentiated from non existence. As you said, and imply with your evidence, the "nothing" is always there when using binary and decimal systems - always based on differentiated frameworks.

Since ancient times, the gateway has been considered the Way, Tao, Paradise, Bliss, etc., but is not the eternal way because there is no time. The eternal way is based on knowledge that cannot be known without perfect knowledge of all consequences, and therefore cannot be expressed in words based on partial knowledge that perpetuates imperfection. Your evidence would apply in this latter case, but there is no mathematician alive with the capability to simplify the complex math to the point where there can be an understanding. It is pointless to even try.

Just like there is a fine line between no time and eternity, and no space and infinity, I think there is a fine line between our implications. Yours are based on an infinite number of frameworks absolutely existing for eternity; mine on frameworks not existing at any time.

Perhaps a good analogy would be trying to separate a drop of water amidst the ocean. It is only possible if the drop is differentiated from the ocean - like by taking the drop out of the ocean. Trying to do the same in order to account for our particles or waves or strings, in an absolute universe, is impossible because there is no differentiable "place" to go.

Relative separation is an illusion, and absolute unification can't exist.