Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

Think about what you are saying, which is that the unity did not exist until interaction occurred. IOW, separation is the fundamental reality. But this makes no sense, since, according to you, interaction has always been the case, and if that is so, then unity must also have been the case. Your logic sux.

Like I said before, I don't ascribe to either a truly dual or a truly nondual view. Interconnectivity or interaction does not signify true separation, nor does it signify true unity. The universe is interconnected and interactive.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ff being non-material in nature, correct?

They are physically existing forces.

 

[Runewolf1973]

All 'things' are illusions. We agreed on that, right?

No, I disagree with your idea of what consists of an "illusion". Seeing things when in fact nothing is there is called a hallucination. An illusion is when something is in fact there, but it is not what it seems. That is what solid matter is, an illusion, not a hallucination out of pure nothingness. Matter is not "pure nothingness", it is the result of real and existing forces of nature.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

No, I disagree with your idea of what consists of an "illusion". Seeing things when in fact nothing is there is called a hallucination. An illusion is when something is in fact there, but it is not what it seems. That is what solid matter is, an illusion, not a hallucination out of pure nothingness. Matter is not "pure nothingness", it is the result of real and existing forces of nature.

I think there's some truth to saying all things are an "illusion" in some sense if that's how you define "illusion". But I wouldn't use the word illusion.

Thinking of things as solid matter is just our mind's way of approximating the the nature of matter based on our experience. As humanity progresses in advancement and knowledge, we're able to take a deeper more precise look at matter and we come to find that what we experience as "solid" is just a repulsive force. But that's not the end all be all way of looking at it. It's just a more approximate way. There's still even deeper theories in the work that may change or advance this perspective. Look at gravity for instance. It's one of the four fundamental forces. However, if you study general relativity, you come to learn to look at gravity as spacetime curvature rather than a force.

One might say that it being a "force" is an illusion or that it's wrong to think of it as that. Nonetheless, it's still useful to think of it as a force for certain practical applications such as in engineering (depending on the type of engineering). Because it may not be important to think of it as spacetime curvature if the application doesn't call for it. Likewise, matter is "solid" when it's important for us to think of it that way. And it's interacting forces when an application calls for a more precise understanding. I don't say this in the sense that we decide the nature of the universe. I say this in the sense that our understanding of the universe will only ever be an approximation.

In the end, "solid" matter is an approximation. Or understanding of it as a repulsive force, interactions and interconnectivity, is just a more precise approximation, but it's still an approximation. So with that said, I think approximation is a better word than illusion.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I think there's some truth to saying all things are an "illusion" in some sense if that's how you define "illusion". But I wouldn't use the word illusion.

Thinking of things as solid matter is just our mind's way of approximating the the nature of matter based on our experience. As humanity progresses in advancement and knowledge, we're able to take a deeper more precise look at matter and we come to find that what we experience as "solid" is just a repulsive force. But that's not the end all be all way of looking at it. It's just a more approximate way. There's still even deeper theories in the work that may change or advance this perspective. Look at gravity for instance. It's one of the four fundamental forces. However, if you study general relativity, you come to learn to look at gravity as spacetime curvature rather than a force.

One might say that it being a "force" is an illusion or that it's wrong to think of it as that. Nonetheless, it's still useful to think of it as a force for certain practical applications such as in engineering (depending on the type of engineering). Because it may not be important to think of it as spacetime curvature if the application doesn't call for it. Likewise, matter is "solid" when it's important for us to think of it that way. And it's interacting forces when an application calls for a more precise understanding. I don't say this in the sense that we decide the nature of the universe. I say this in the sense that our understanding of the universe will only ever be an approximation.

In the end, "solid" matter is an approximation. Or understanding of it as a repulsive force, interactions and interconnectivity, is just a more precise approximation, but it's still an approximation. So with that said, I think approximation is a better word than illusion.

Very good point. I agree.

 

[godnotgod]

Like I said before, I don't ascribe to either a truly dual or a truly nondual view. Interconnectivity or interaction does not signify true separation, nor does it signify true unity. The universe is interconnected and interactive.

Yes, but you had said that unity is the result of interaction, and I am saying that unity has always been the case. Interaction did not bring about a unified condition. The Uni-verse has always been unified.

 

[godnotgod]

They are physically existing forces.

...but their nature is non-material.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I disagree with your idea of what consists of an "illusion". Seeing things when in fact nothing is there is called a hallucination. An illusion is when something is in fact there, but it is not what it seems. That is what solid matter is, an illusion, not a hallucination out of pure nothingness. Matter is not "pure nothingness", it is the result of real and existing forces of nature.

There is something there, but it is not what it seems. That is form and matter. At the most fundamental level, we now find that all of the mass of the atom is created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields. That mass is virtual mass. There is no real, solid, matter. What is creating virtual atomic mass are non-material forces. You call them interactions. I am asking what the nature of these forces are, and all you can tell me is that they are interactions, which says nothing.

 

[godnotgod]

I think there's some truth to saying all things are an "illusion" in some sense if that's how you define "illusion". But I wouldn't use the word illusion.

You see, the problem is this: what we perceive via ordinary consciousness as solid matter is not what it seems. Garden variety illusions, once seen, vanish. The rope seen as a snake, once understood to be a rope, does not continue to manifest as 'snake'. However, the universe does continue to manifest as the universe, even though we intuit it to be something other than ordinary matter and form. That is because this kind of illusion is on a higher plane than the ordinary everyday illusion. That is the problem Runewolf is having with this, because he cannot see how something like the manifested universe can possibly emerge out of nothing at all. From the POV of higher consciousness, however, this is the only way it can manifest as the 'material' universe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

An illusion is when something is in fact there, but it is not what it seems. That is what solid matter is, an illusion, not a hallucination out of pure nothingness. Matter is not "pure nothingness", it is the result of real and existing forces of nature.

I think that empirically solid matter is a perception and not an illusion. We experience matter as being solid, whether or not we know about atoms and quarks and such. And when you drop a brick on your foot the pain isn't an illusion, it's a perception.

 

[YmirGF]

I think there's some truth to saying all things are an "illusion" in some sense if that's how you define "illusion". But I wouldn't use the word illusion.

Thinking of things as solid matter is just our mind's way of approximating the the nature of matter based on our experience. As humanity progresses in advancement and knowledge, we're able to take a deeper more precise look at matter and we come to find that what we experience as "solid" is just a repulsive force. But that's not the end all be all way of looking at it. It's just a more approximate way. There's still even deeper theories in the work that may change or advance this perspective. Look at gravity for instance. It's one of the four fundamental forces. However, if you study general relativity, you come to learn to look at gravity as spacetime curvature rather than a force.

One might say that it being a "force" is an illusion or that it's wrong to think of it as that. Nonetheless, it's still useful to think of it as a force for certain practical applications such as in engineering (depending on the type of engineering). Because it may not be important to think of it as spacetime curvature if the application doesn't call for it. Likewise, matter is "solid" when it's important for us to think of it that way. And it's interacting forces when an application calls for a more precise understanding. I don't say this in the sense that we decide the nature of the universe. I say this in the sense that our understanding of the universe will only ever be an approximation.

In the end, "solid" matter is an approximation. Or understanding of it as a repulsive force, interactions and interconnectivity, is just a more precise approximation, but it's still an approximation. So with that said, I think approximation is a better word than illusion.

It's nice to see another person who seems capable of rational thought in a thread where rational thought is almost an option. Speaking for myself, I'm not keen on labeling physical reality as an illusion as it is very real from the physical perspective. Even the delusions of the insane are quite real to them. With that in mind, I like your nuanced use of the word approximations. In many ways our minds "paper over" the breaks in continuity superimposing an order onto perceived reality. Perhaps this it is due to approximations, as you put it, that "first hand witness" accounts can vary so widely.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The universe is interconnected and interactive.

From what we can observe everything in the universe looks conditional and relative. No absolutes.

 

[godnotgod]

From what we can observe everything in the universe looks conditional and relative. No absolutes.

....except for the Universe itself, which is Everything, and being Everything, has no 'other' to which it can be compared. Since there is no such relative 'other', the Universe is, by default. absolute. But not only is it absolute, it is The Absolute. (caps indicate an absolute condition).

'Relative' is only a value superimposed over reality by the mind. What we call 'relative' is in fact, a single whole. There is no relative value that can exist independently of its relative opposite, rendering the 'two' as one. We say 'night' and 'day', but the reality is actually 'nightday'; a single reality. 'Hot' and 'cold' is only a single continuum from hot to cold, rather than independent polar opposites.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

You see, the problem is this: what we perceive via ordinary consciousness as solid matter is not what it seems.

We don't perceive anything as exactly how it is. Nothing is ever going to be precisely what it seems to be for us. We could only ever get better approximations. In the end, it's whatever notions, theories, models and frameworks can be best put into practice and have useful applications.

For example, take Heliocentric and Geocentric Theory. Heliocentric Theory is the one that's accepted today, and the main reason being is, as a theoretical model, it has more usability and predictive power. None the less, Geocentric Theory, even though it's "wrong", did have a degree of usefulness in ancient times. Modeling the solar system/universe as revolving around the Earth had a limited degree of predictive power, such as the Sun rising and setting at regular intervals.

The rope seen as a snake, once understood to be a rope, does not continue to manifest as 'snake'.

Well if it's not a snake to begin with, saying it does not "continue" to manifest as a snake doesn't make much sense. It never manifested as a snake.

From the POV of higher consciousness, however, this is the only way it can manifest as the 'material' universe.

I'm not sure what POV means, but if you're saying the material universe manifested from consciousness, well that sounds like a huge remarkable claim, which requires remarkable evidence or proof.

 

[godnotgod]

I think that empirically solid matter is a perception and not an illusion. We experience matter as being solid, whether or not we know about atoms and quarks and such. And when you drop a brick on your foot the pain isn't an illusion, it's a perception.

It's just that the brick we think is real, especially when dropped onto the foot, is an illusion of a higher order. A brick dropped onto the foot in a dream creates what is perceived of as real dream pain. It is only upon awakening from the second level of consciousness onto the third do we realize the illusory quality of the dream. That is also true when further awakening from the third to the fourth and beyond.

 

[godnotgod]

Well if it's not a snake to begin with, saying it does not "continue" to manifest as a snake doesn't make much sense. It never manifested as a snake.

It does in the mind.

I'm not sure what POV means, but if you're saying the material universe manifested from consciousness, well that sounds like a huge remarkable claim, which requires remarkable evidence or proof.

Sorry, POV = 'point of view'.

What 'material' universe?

 

[godnotgod]

...I'm not keen on labeling physical reality as an illusion as it is very real from the physical perspective.

It is from the POV of perceptual reality, but from the POV of Ultimate Reality, it is not, in the same way that the unicorn you rode in last night's dream was very real, but when you awoke onto the next higher level of consciousness, it ceased to be real. Your awakened consciousness immediately told you it was only a dream.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's just that the brick we think is real, especially when dropped onto the foot, is an illusion of a higher order. A brick dropped onto the foot in a dream creates what is perceived of as real dream pain. It is only upon awakening from the second level of consciousness onto the third do we realize the illusory quality of the dream. That is also true when further awakening from the third to the fourth and beyond.

So you won't mind people dropping bricks on your foot while you're meditating then.

 

[godnotgod]

So you won't mind people dropping bricks on your foot while you're meditating then.

Spiny, please! I know you're smarter than that. Rethink your answer, OK?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Spiny, please! I know you're smarter than that. Rethink your answer, OK?

<sigh>
So again anyone who doesn't accept your odd views isn't thinking clearly. Oh well.