Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[godnotgod]

There is no such thing as nothingness in the Cosmos, the Cosmos is One, you cannot divide it up and label this and that, we as humans do that, but the Cosmos doesn't, it is One unity, no division at all.

Yes, it IS One, but the cosmos exists against some background. That background is Nothingness. Out of it comes the cosmos, but the cosmos is not separate from Nothingness. They are One Reality, because the cosmos cannot be the cosmos without its background of Nothingness, just as sound cannot exist without silence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[godnotgod]

Little Mr. Big exists against his background of Mr. Biggie Big, but Little Mr. Big has clean forgotten about Mr. Biggie Big because he wants to run the show and thinks its all about him, not realizing that he cannot be who he is without Mr. Biggie Big to support him, nor that he is actually Mr. Biggie Big pretending to be Little Mr. Big.

 

[`mud]

unforeseen...postmortemwas...nonexistant...nothingness
what was before the nonexistance of the unborn future,
hey.....what the f..there was something,
it had to be the cause of nonexistance to be an effect !
Sounds like someone wants to press the presense of God in here.
Soooooo...God was the pre-existance in nothingness,
waiting forever and ever to be born...
I kinda agree with GNG pretty much here !!!
It just goes round and round.
~
'mud

 

[YmirGF]

unforeseen...postmortemwas...nonexistant...nothingness
what was before the nonexistance of the unborn future,
hey.....what the f..there was something,
it had to be the cause of nonexistance to be an effect !
Sounds like someone wants to press the presense of God in here.
Soooooo...God was the pre-existance in nothingness,
waiting forever and ever to be born...
I kinda agree with GNG pretty much here !!!
It just goes round and round.
~
'mud

At least you are honest in your presumptions about God, ol' mud. So many ideas we see floating about in this thread seem to be replacements for the idea, but snuggle up close as they dare without saying for sure. I, for one, have no difficulty accepting your stance. I would continue, but I'm pressed for time.......

 

[Runewolf1973]

Except that Bigfoot is 'out there', while The Changeless is as close to you as the tip of your nose. In fact, you are nothing less than The Changeless itself, pretending to 'Interaction'. It's just the game you choose to play.

It has been said that, should you come face to face with The Devil, do not be afraid; instead, compliment him on the quality of his illusion.

How can something which is changeless pretend to do or be anything? It all requires interaction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Given a universe that is infinitely indivisibly one...any concepts to describe differentiated aspects of the infinite interactive field are not truly disconnected....so if you accept that interactions can form the basis of life and consciousness in the micro level lowly evolved entities such as humans, animals, etc., why not the macro level of stars, galaxies, etc.,...to infinity itself.. Iow, if the principle of life and consciousness is in the interactions, the principle itself in omnipresent and so there is no limit to the types and forms it takes from the infinitesimal to the infinite..Try not to think anthropomorphically about awareness....

The principle of life and consciousness is in the complexity. The interaction is just what initiates that change in complexity where one form can change in such a way that it might interact in a more complex manner. That the universe is interactive does not necessarily mean that it is complex enough to have its own consciousness. Certain forms however did evolve in such a way to be complex enough to support that highly advanced form of interaction we call "consciousness". It is all interaction on a fundamental level, but some things interact in a more complex manner than others due to the way in which they evolved/changed form over time.

 

[godnotgod]

The principle of life and consciousness is in the complexity. The interaction is just what initiates that change in complexity where one form can change in such a way that it might interact in a more complex manner. That the universe is interactive does not necessarily mean that it is complex enough to have its own consciousness. Certain forms however did evolve in such a way to be complex enough to support that highly advanced form of interaction we call "consciousness". It is all interaction on a fundamental level, but some things interact in a more complex manner than others due to the way in which they evolved/changed form over time.

This is just another way of describing Emergent Theory, which cannot explain how the conscious emerges from the unconscious; the non-material from the material. It all assumes the material to be real. Once the material is seen for what it is: illusion, one's view is transformed. Slowly, Quantum Physics is now converging with this view.

 

[godnotgod]

How can something which is changeless pretend to do or be anything? It all requires interaction.

Pretension is not real, so what is being pretended is not real. Not being real, there is no real interaction.

I think you would agree that change can occur only in Time. If Time is an illusion, there can be no change.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This is just another way of describing Emergent Theory, which cannot explain how the conscious emerges from the unconscious; the non-material from the material. It all assumes the material to be real. Once the material is seen for what it is: illusion, one's view is transformed. Slowly, Quantum Physics is now converging with this view.

Forget consciousness. I already explained that more interactive forms can emerge from less interactive forms because change is natural. Your view of nothingness/changeless is not supported by any science or physics because there is no evidence for it. My theory stands.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Pretension is not real, so what is being pretended is not real. Not being real, there is no real interaction.

I think you would agree that change can occur only in Time. If Time is an illusion, there can be no change.

Change is a fact.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Change is a fact.

It's evident at all scales too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That the universe is interactive does not necessarily mean that it is complex enough to have its own consciousness. Certain forms however did evolve in such a way to be complex enough to support that highly advanced form of interaction we call "consciousness".

Listen to what you say.....how can more complex organization come from the less complex....even in an eternity of eternities? It is impossible...if you think otherwise...provide the evidence?

 

[outhouse]

Listen to what you say.....how can more complex organization come from the less complex....even in an eternity of eternities? It is impossible...if you think otherwise...provide the evidence?

He stated it correctly.

It is you who misunderstands.

 

[outhouse]

how can more complex organization come from the less complex....

Life forms factually evolve, as did consciousness factually evolve.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

He stated it correctly.

It is you who misunderstands.

Fine....provide the evidence.....or else....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Life forms factually evolve, as did consciousness factually evolve.

Of course they do....but they do it in the universe.... are you saying the evolving entity is more complex the the universe in which they evolving in?

 

[outhouse]

.... are you saying the evolving entity is more complex the the universe in which they evolving in?

Are you saying the opposite.


That is rhetoric. Its like saying the glass beaker holding the chemicals is more complex then the chemicals. Non sequitur.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Listen to what you say.....how can more complex organization come from the less complex....even in an eternity of eternities? It is impossible...if you think otherwise...provide the evidence?

Here is a quote from an article I found:

"It may be difficult to imagine that your body is made of spinning protons, neutrons, and electrons, but this is indeed the case. It's slightly easier, however, to picture forms of matter in levels that increase in complexity. For example, subatomic particles can be organized into atoms, which are the components of molecules, and molecules can be organized into macromolecules, such as DNA and proteins, which can be built into cells. Cells can then be organized into tissues, which form organs, and organs can be grouped into organ systems, which are built into entire organisms—including humans like you. Organisms are units that can form populations, and then biospheres, which go on to make up even greater levels of complexity."


This is the article:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...ty-and-integrative-levels-of-organization-468

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Are you saying the opposite.


That is rhetoric. Its like saying the glass beaker holding the chemicals is more complex then the chemicals. Non sequitur.

Yes....the whole is more complex than the part....

...and no.it is like saying the glass beaker plus chemical complex is more complex than just the chemicals....