Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

Interaction is eternal and ceaseless.

Your argument is one-sided and illogical. Again, it is like saying there is only 'ON' and no 'OFF'. Action always implies a state of non-action. You are attempting to describe the non-dual universe in dualistic terms by making one side of a duality an absolute, while completely ignoring the other side. Can't you see that?

The moment you conceive the thought of 'interaction', you are doing so against a passive background of 'non-interaction', without realizing it. IOW, the passive background is already in place even before you think 'interaction'. The concept of interaction is completely dependent upon the passive background. Were it not, you could not conceive of something called 'interaction'.

The passive background is The Changeless. All change comes out of The Changeless as pure play.

 

[godnotgod]

Clutching at straws? Seriously. The nature of interaction is unity, unification, universe. Interaction is the force of unification.

That is just to say that unity relies on interaction. Therefore, logically speaking, if there were no interaction, there would be no unity, but that is simply not the case. If there were no interaction, there would just be no form, but unity is always preserved, simply because the universe is Everything and as such, is indivisible. Interaction has nothing to do with unity. Interaction is simply the play of Nothingness. Because there is Nothing, there is Everything. No-thing is the fundamental reality. Interaction is just the appearance of things. Nothing ever changes. This is also consistent with Einstein's Constancy Laws. You are being fooled by form and the appearances of form.

Can you answer the question, or not: What is all of this so called 'interaction' all about?

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction looks pretty self-explanatory to me.

Oh? What does it explain? What is it all about? Hmmmm?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Your argument is one-sided and illogical. Again, it is like saying there is only 'ON' and no 'OFF'. Action always implies a state of non-action. You are attempting to describe the non-dual universe in dualistic terms by making one side of a duality an absolute, while completely ignoring the other side. Can't you see that?

The moment you conceive the thought of 'interaction', you are doing so against a passive background of 'non-interaction', without realizing it. IOW, the passive background is already in place even before you think 'interaction'. The concept of interaction is completely dependent upon the passive background. Were it not, you could not conceive of something called 'interaction'.

The passive background is The Changeless. All change comes out of The Changeless as pure play.

Interaction is one-sided? Nonsense. How does "play" arise out of "changeless"? You can't seem to give me a logical answer to that question. The logical conclusion, because nothing can exist without also interacting in some way, is that this "play" (interaction) has always existed and always will exist. Interaction is ceaseless. Change (interaction) is the universal constant. Strange, but true.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That is just to say that unity relies on interaction. Therefore, logically speaking, if there were no interaction, there would be no unity, but that is simply not the case. If there were no interaction, there would just be no form, but unity is always preserved, simply because the universe is Everything and as such, is indivisible. Interaction has nothing to do with unity. Interaction is simply the play of Nothingness. Because there is Nothing, there is Everything. No-thing is the fundamental reality. Interaction is just the appearance of things. Nothing ever changes. This is also consistent with Einstein's Constancy Laws. You are being fooled by form and the appearances of form.

Can you answer the question, or not: What is all of this so called 'interaction' all about?

Like previously stated, interaction is self explanatory. It is really no different than interconnectivity which is a term you even used a few times yourself.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oh? What does it explain? What is it all about? Hmmmm?

Interaction is about EVERYTHING. Interaction explains EVERYTHING. Such a simple word yet it even explains this ridiculous conversation and why our views differ despite this great unity which we call the universe. It explains why there is such a thing as consciousness, or life, or death. Changelessness explains nothing. Interaction is what makes the universe "tick" like a great, infinite and eternally beating heart.

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction is one-sided? Nonsense. How does "play" arise out of "changeless"? You can't seem to give me a logical answer to that question. The logical conclusion, because nothing can exist without also interacting in some way, is that this "play" (interaction) has always existed and always will exist. Interaction is ceaseless. Change (interaction) is the universal constant. Strange, but true.

Yes, the opposite of interaction is non-interaction. It is a relative value; not an absolute value, as you would have it.

How do dreams arise out of sleep? When you awaken, whatever 'action' went on in the dream vanishes. There never was any such action.

You continue to contradict yourself, as you previously accepted that the universe endlessly goes through 'ON' and 'OFF' phases, which interaction must follow. There is no interaction during the 'OFF' phase.

Now you want to lend credibility to your silly theory by attaching it to bona fide scientific terms, ie; 'universal constant'. Joke.

The only interaction that is ceaseless is the monkey mind chatter that goes on in your head. Stop, and you may see The Changeless.

 

[godnotgod]

Like previously stated, interaction is self explanatory. It is really no different than interconnectivity which is a term you even used a few times yourself.

Maybe you don't understand the question: WHAT IS INTERACTION ALL ABOUT?

All you are saying is 'interaction is interaction, which explains itself', which makes zero sense. It does'nt 'explain' anything at all.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Maybe you don't understand the question: WHAT IS INTERACTION ALL ABOUT?

All you are saying is 'interaction is interaction, which explains itself', which makes zero sense. It does'nt 'explain' anything at all.

Do you even know what self-explanatory means?

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction is about EVERYTHING. Interaction explains EVERYTHING. Such a simple word yet it even explains this ridiculous conversation and why our views differ despite this great unity which we call the universe. It explains why there is such a thing as consciousness, or life, or death. Changelessness explains nothing. Interaction is what makes the universe "tick" like a great, infinite and eternally beating heart.

But what is all of this ABOUT? What is the true nature of Reality? Not what does it do, nor what its characteristics are. Interaction is simply the outcome of what the universe IS, not its nature. I have already given my explanation as to its nature, but you just go round and round in circles with your silly 'interaction', which, of course, is obvious even to an idiot. I am not asking what its behaviour is, but what its behaviour points to as its nature.

Interaction is not what makes the universe 'tick'; it is the ticking itself. Tell me what makes the universe tick.

I really don't think you understand the question!

 

[godnotgod]

Do you even know what self-explanatory means?

Yes, but saying that 'air is air' is not self-explanatory! Your logic is erroneous, but you fail to see it.

If interaction were self-explanatory, science would have no reason for continuing to investigate the universe, and you would have won a Nobel Prize.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, the opposite of interaction is non-interaction. It is a relative value; not an absolute value, as you would have it.

How do dreams arise out of sleep? When you awaken, whatever 'action' went on in the dream vanishes. There never was any such action.

You continue to contradict yourself, as you previously accepted that the universe endlessly goes through 'ON' and 'OFF' phases, which interaction must follow. There is no interaction during the 'OFF' phase.

Now you want to lend credibility to your silly theory by attaching it to bona fide scientific terms, ie; 'universal constant'. Joke.

The only interaction that is ceaseless is the monkey mind chatter that goes on in your head. Stop, and you may see The Changeless.

I can attach my theory to bona fide scientific terms if I want because my theory does not go against any known science. It is you who continues to attach notions like The Changeless or Pure Consciousness to quantum mechanics. Your mystic views have nothing to do with quantum mechanics or science.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But what is all of this ABOUT? What is the true nature of Reality? Not what does it do, nor what its characteristics are. Interaction is simply the outcome of what the universe IS, not its nature. I have already given my explanation as to its nature, but you just go round and round in circles with your silly 'interaction', which, of course, is obvious even to an idiot. I am not asking what its behaviour is, but what its behaviour points to as its nature.

Interaction is not what makes the universe 'tick'; it is the ticking itself. Tell me what makes the universe tick.

I really don't think you understand the question!

Interaction is nature itself.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, but saying that 'air is air' is not self-explanatory! Your logic is erroneous, but you fail to see it.

If interaction were self-explanatory, science would have no reason for continuing to investigate the universe, and you would have won a Nobel Prize.

"Air" is not a self-explanatory term. Interaction is the reason why science continues. The universe is always changing and there are always new things to explore, to learn, or to discover.

 

[godnotgod]

"Air" is not a self-explanatory term. Interaction is the reason why science continues. The universe is always changing and there are always new things to explore, to learn, or to discover.

So what drives all of it? You know. what is at the root of interaction?

Interaction may be why science investigates, but is not the reason for the existence of the universe. Interaction is what the universe does. Do you know the difference?

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction is nature itself.

Yeah? And what is that? What, RW, is the true nature of Reality?
(no, not what it does, but what it IS; interaction is what it does, or merely appears to do)

 

[godnotgod]

I can attach my theory to bona fide scientific terms if I want because my theory does not go against any known science. It is you who continues to attach notions like The Changeless or Pure Consciousness to quantum mechanics. Your mystic views have nothing to do with quantum mechanics or science.

The mystical view has been around far longer than science. Now, science is at last confirming what mystics have known all along: that the material universe is not material at all.

IT'S AN ILLUSION!

(and so is any notion such as 'interaction' that follows)

I have never attached mystical terms to QM. It is QM that points to the already established mystical view. 'The Changeless' and 'Pure Consciousness' have been around for centuries.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So what drives all of it? You know. what is at the root of interaction?

Interaction may be why science investigates, but is not the reason for the existence of the universe. Interaction is what the universe does. Do you know the difference?

The universe certainly would not exist without interaction. Interaction is constant, eternal and self-driving. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The mystical view has been around far longer than science. Now, science is at last confirming what mystics have known all along: that the material universe is not material at all.

IT'S AN ILLUSION!

(and so is any notion such as 'interaction' that follows)

I have never attached mystical terms to QM. It is QM that points to the already established mystical view. 'The Changeless' and 'Pure Consciousness' have been around for centuries.

Interaction has been around long before this "mystical view" ever came into the picture. In fact, interaction has been around for eternity. The universe has always interacted.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yeah? And what is that? What, RW, is the true nature of Reality?
(no, not what it does, but what it IS; interaction is what it does, or merely appears to do)

What is the nature of nothingness? Oh yeah...nothingness has no nature and therefore is NO reality.