Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

OK, but what is manifesting pure light/energy?

I call it the Animating Factor as I mentioned to Ben in an earlier post. I do not believe the Animating Factor is conscious, but it is omnipresent. Some prefer to call it the Unified Field as it is the field from which all the known forces and interactions stem. I call it the Animating Factor because it is that which brings all of existence into animation. It is the ultimate source of all interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

Here, read this...

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/forces.html

As you can see the property of, or in other words the "nature" of the Four Fundamental forces is as follows...

• The strong interaction is very strong, but very short-ranged. It acts only over ranges of order 10-13 centimeters and is responsible for holding the nuclei of atoms together. It is basically attractive, but can be effectively repulsive in some circumstances.
• The electromagnetic force causes electric and magnetic effects such as the repulsion between like electrical charges or the interaction of bar magnets. It is long-ranged, but much weaker than the strong force. It can be attractive or repulsive, and acts only between pieces of matter carrying electrical charge.
• The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay and neutrino interactions. It has a very short range and, as its name indicates, it is very weak.
• The gravitational force is weak, but very long ranged. Furthermore, it is always attractive, and acts between any two pieces of matter in the Universe since mass is its source.

Perhaps you mean to ask something different, like where the Four Fundamental forces come from? Is that what you are asking?



---

What you have posted is not their nature. What you have posted is what they do. That does not tell us what they are, nor their source.

 

[godnotgod]

I call it the Animating Factor as I mentioned to Ben in an earlier post. I do not believe the Animating Factor is conscious, but it is omnipresent. Some prefer to call it the Unified Field as it is the field from which all the known forces and interactions stem. I call it the Animating Factor because it is that which brings all of existence into animation. It is the ultimate source of all interaction.

Therefore it is not itself interactive.

So the Animating Factor, not being conscious, is unaware that it is the source of all forces and interactions. IOW, it does not have an awareness of what it is doing, is that right?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Therefore it is not itself interactive.

So the Animating Factor, not being conscious, is unaware that it is the source of all forces and interactions. IOW, it does not have an awareness of what it is doing, is that right?

Does a leaf need awareness to fall from a tree? Does a stone need awareness to roll down a hill? I would say the Animating Factor is not conscious, but it is still interactive at some level. Even if all the Fundamental Forces where united into a single Unified Field, it would still amount to a type of all-encompassing, omnipresent interactive field.

 

[godnotgod]

Does a leaf need awareness to fall from a tree? Does a stone need awareness to roll down a hill? I would say the Animating Factor is not conscious, but it is still interactive at some level. Even if all the Fundamental Forces where united into a single Unified Field, it would still amount to a type of all-encompassing, omnipresent interactive field.

Being the source of the FF, how can it itself be interactive, and why would it be, since all of the interactive functions would already be taken care of by the FF?

There must be a knowing involved with the leaf and the stone, either on the part of the leaf or stone, or from some outside source. Something determines when the leaf must fall from the tree, and something must determine the point at which the stone must begin to roll, even though the leaf or stone do not have to THINK about what they do, just as you don't need to think about beating your heart, breathing your breath, digesting your food. Consciousness has already pre-programmed these functions, so it does not need to be up front all the time in order to run them, thereby allowing consciousness the freedom it needs to focus on other things, such as danger or pleasure or food. The leaf or stone or fruit falling from the tree have no INTENT to do what they do, but that does not mean there is no consciousness involved, which would be non-local.

"The geese, flying over the still pond, have no intention of casting their shadows;
the pond, in reflecting them, has no intention of doing so"

Zen source

 

[godnotgod]

I call it the Animating Factor

This is a variation of God as Maker, moulding the image of man from clay, and then breathing his life-force into it. This view is known as The Artefact View. The Universe is made of inanimate 'material' things, like a pot is a made object of the potter. The 'Animating Factor' then 'animates' (via magic, I suppose) it's force into them. This is the duality of subject/object.

Does this 'Animating Factor' have a long flowing beard and is dressed in a white sheet by any chance? I think the philosopher Hagel has you beat, as he referred to it as 'that gaseous vertebrate'.

A 'factor' is a component of a greater whole. What is it that it is a component of?

Do you see what you're doing? You're splitting things up into 'this' and 'that', where no such division is evident.

It's like saying 'the lightning flashes'. The lightning does not flash; The lightning and the flashing are one and the same event.

There is no 'Animating Factor' that in turn animates the inanimate. There is no
'animator' of the animation. There is only animation itself. And so....

"The Absolute IS The Universe, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekananda

...and so, because we see Reality through the framework of the conceptual mind:

"There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

 

[Runewolf1973]

This is a variation of God as Maker, moulding the image of man from clay, and then breathing his life-force into it. This view is known as The Artefact View. The Universe is made of inanimate 'material' things, like a pot is a made object of the potter. The 'Animating Factor' then 'animates' (via magic, I suppose) it's force into them. This is the duality of subject/object.

Does this 'Animating Factor' have a long flowing beard and is dressed in a white sheet by any chance? I think the philosopher Hagel has you beat, as he referred to it as 'that gaseous vertebrate'.

A 'factor' is a component of a greater whole. What is it that it is a component of?

Do you see what you're doing? You're splitting things up into 'this' and 'that', where no such division is evident.

It's like saying 'the lightning flashes'. The lightning does not flash; The lightning and the flashing are one and the same event.

There is no 'Animating Factor' that in turn animates the inanimate. There is no
'animator' of the animation. There is only animation itself. And so....

"The Absolute IS The Universe, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekananda

...and so, because we see Reality through the framework of the conceptual mind:

"There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

It is a fact there are naturally existing forces which bring into animation the stars, the planets, the galaxies, all the way down to the atomic and subatomic levels. There are forces which generate life and consciousness. These are natural forces, not supernatural or mystical. Would a physicist say the Unifiied Field (if there were actually such a thing) is supernatural? Probably not. What I call the Animating Factor is nothing like "God" as you so ignorantly try to portray it. It is the naturally existing "field" or "source" of the Fundamental Forces. Don't give me this "watch maker" crap. You are clearly delusional and you clearly enjoy twisting around what others say.

 

[godnotgod]

The electrochemical interactions in the brain do not "create" consciousness. Nothing is created. Those complex interactions give us the illuson of being conscious. Nothing (no matter or energy) is truly conscious or living. Everything is interactive.


"Divine Union" is not mystical? Haha...hahaha! Good one.

Can you read? I did not say that divine union was not mystical: it is; union/merging is the nature of the mystical experience. I said that Consciousness is not mystical, because it is already One.

 

[godnotgod]

It is a fact there are naturally existing forces which bring into animation the stars, the planets, the galaxies, all the way down to the atomic and subatomic levels. There are forces which generate life and consciousness. These are natural forces, not supernatural or mystical. Would a physicist say the Unifiied Field (if there were actually such a thing) is supernatural? Probably not. What I call the Animating Factor is nothing like "God" as you so ignorantly try to portray it. It is the naturally existing "field" or "source" of the Fundamental Forces. Don't give me this "watch maker" crap. You are clearly delusional and you clearly enjoy twisting around what others say.

'Animating Factor' implies that something is being animated. So there is the Animating Factor on the one hand, and that which is being animated on the other. You have just described a creator and its creation.

What do you mean 'naturally existing forces'? All things are naturally existing, other than human artefacts. But the question is what is the source of these 'naturally existing forces'? Are they eternally existing or did they come into being at some point?

What I am saying is that what you call the 'Animating Factor' is none other than the animation itself. There is no Animating Factor that gives rise to the animation. They're the same thing.

re: 'forces which bring into animation the stars, the planets, the galaxies': this clearly describes the image of an animating force which animates the animation; a duality. What's the diff between this and a creator God which breathes its lifeforce into a clay image?

 

[Runewolf1973]

'Animating Factor' implies that something is being animated. So there is the Animating Factor on the one hand, and that which is being animated on the other. You have just described a creator and its creation.

What do you mean 'naturally existing forces'? All things are naturally existing, other than human artefacts. But the question is what is the source of these 'naturally existing forces'? Are they eternally existing or did they come into being at some point?

What I am saying is that what you call the 'Animating Factor' is none other than the animation itself. There is no Animating Factor that gives rise to the animation. They're the same thing.

re: 'forces which bring into animation the stars, the planets, the galaxies': this clearly describes the image of an animating force which animates the animation; a duality. What's the diff between this and a creator God which breathes its lifeforce into a clay image?

No, it is not a matter of creator and creation. It is a matter of transformation. Energy cannot be created, it only changes form. Animation is a form of interaction. As I said before, interaction is everything. The difference is that this is not a personal "Creator God" belief, since I do not believe in "creation". It is the continual transformation of something which has always existed in one form or another. I call that transformational, interactive force which has always existed in one form or another the Animating Factor.

 

[godnotgod]

I call that transformational, interactive force which has always existed in one form or another the Animating Factor.

A force that doesn't know what it's doing, but does it anyway. Not buying it.

So what is this 'animating factor'? (not what it does), and what is it a factor OF?

re: 'continual transformation of something': indicates a duality of 'this' transforming 'that'. IOW, a force is acting upon something to transform it into something else. Whereas, in the view I have presented, there is simply the merging of observer and observed, which is, in reality, an illusion. There never was a separation or duality. It's just realization of what is. The transformation of the dual mind into the realized mind is one of consciousness. Anything else is maya.

What is all this transformation about? 'continual transformation' is meaningless.

 

[Runewolf1973]

A force that doesn't know what it's doing, but does it anyway. Not buying it.

So what is this 'animating factor'? (not what it does), and what is it a factor OF?

re: 'continual transformation of something': indicates a duality of 'this' transforming 'that'.

What is all this transformation about?

Who's saying you have to "buy" any of it? You have your views, I got mine. Big deal. Whether you "buy it" or not makes no difference to me.

The Animating Factor is pure interactive potential. It is the ground state of the entire universe. It is everything.

In states of transformation there is still interconnectivity. Nothing is truly separate even though things might act as if they were separate.

 

[godnotgod]

Who's saying you have to "buy" any of it? You have your views, I got mine. Big deal. Whether you "buy it" or not makes no difference to me.

The Animating Factor is pure interactive potential. It is the ground state of the entire universe. It is everything.

In states of transformation there is still interconnectivity. Nothing is truly separate even though things might act as if they were separate.

If it's everything, then it's not a factor, which is a part, or aspect, of something greater.

And if it's everything, then it is Absolute, as there is no 'other' to which it can be compared. Being everything, anything that changes within is an illusion, because the overall remains the same. That is The Changeless.

You still haven't explained how it does what it does without knowing what it is doing.

And you give no explanation as to what all this so-called 'interaction' is all about, as if interaction were the goal. The Universe may as well never have come into being; a gyrating stupidity.

No one is saying I have to buy into your view; it's just that I don't., and that's because the 'interaction' you are describing requires intelligence and consciousness, something you deny. As I said before, your view is focused on duality and the Outcome, rather than on the unity and the Source.

You present a scenario of one thing acting upon something else, as you stated. That is division and separation. The view I have presented is undivided. It is only that of The Absolute playing itself as The World.

Interaction is nothing more than seeing the rope as a snake, but continuing to see it as a snake, believing snake to be the reality.

Interaction is an isolated, artificial view of 'this' interacting with 'that', but the reality is that whatever change you perceive is actually a total action of the entire Universe, which ultimately is maya.

 

[Runewolf1973]

If it's everything, then it's not a factor, which is a part, or aspect, of something greater.

And if it's everything, then it is Absolute, as there is no 'other' to which it can be compared. Being everything, anything that changes within is an illusion, because the overall remains the same. That is The Changeless.

You still haven't explained how it does what it does without knowing what it is doing.

And you give no explanation as to what all this so-called 'interaction' is all about, as if interaction were the goal. The Universe may as well never have come into being; a gyrating stupidity.

No one is saying I have to buy into your view; it's just that I don't., and that's because the 'interaction' you are describing requires intelligence and consciousness, something you deny. As I said before, your view is focused on duality and the Outcome, rather than on the unity and the Source.

You present a scenario of one thing acting upon something else, as you stated. That is division and separation. The view I have presented is undivided. It is only that of The Absolute playing itself as The World.

Interaction is nothing more than seeing the rope as a snake, but continuing to see it as a snake, believing snake to be the reality.

Interaction is an isolated, artificial view of 'this' interacting with 'that', but the reality is that whatever change you perceive is actually a total action of the entire Universe, which ultimately is maya.

Who knows? Quantum Physics points to the possible existence of a Unified Field. I call it the Animating Factor, but they are actually the same thing. It is just an alternative name for the Unified Field which I use on occasion because it aligns more with my animistic views. Really, who cares what anyone calls it? It doesn't matter. Even quantum physicists (the credible ones at least) do not pretend to have all the answers. Foolishly you seem to think you have all the answers. From a physics standpoint the universe and everything in it is interactive and ever-changing. From a logical standpoint, consciousness is a complex form of interaction. You can keep spouting off all this nonsense about The Changeless and Pure Consciousness all you want, but until you provide evidence, all it will ever amount to is an unsubstantiated belief. For now I will side with science and reason. It is a fact that there are interactive, animating forces at work in the universe...Fundamental Forces. Beyond that, no one really knows. I speculate that those forces always existed in one form or another, perhaps in some combined manner which could be called the Unified Field or the Animating Factor.

 

[godnotgod]

Who knows? Quantum Physics points to the possible existence of a Unified Field. I call it the Animating Factor, but they are actually the same thing. It is just an alternative name for the Unified Field which I use on occasion because it aligns more with my animistic views. Really, who cares what anyone calls it? It doesn't matter.

For someone who leans on science as you do, the use of your misleading terminology is very unscientific.

So you want to make scientific ideas align with your beliefs.

The mystical experience is the opposite: it comes to its conclusions independently of all views, and then sees that science sometimes aligns with those conclusions. However, those alignments are still only superficial to the mystical experience, as they are still nibbling around the edges.

 

[godnotgod]

I speculate that those forces always existed in one form or another, perhaps in some combined manner which could be called the Unified Field or the Animating Factor.

So the Animating Factor is the animator of the animation. Is that right?

 

[Runewolf1973]

For someone who leans on science as you do, the use of your misleading terminology is very unscientific.

So you want to make scientific ideas align with your beliefs.

The mystical experience is the opposite: it comes to its conclusions independently of all views, and then sees that science sometimes aligns with those conclusions. However, those alignments are still only superficial to the mystical experience, as they are still nibbling around the edges.

What complete and utter nonsense. I have no desire whatsoever to make science align or conform to my beliefs. I align my beliefs with science. The facts and the evidence get priority over any beliefs I might have.

I use some different terminology? Yes.

I also thoroughly explained my terminology, therefore there is nothing whatsoever misleading about it.

I know...I know...you already have all the answers...

 

[Runewolf1973]

So the Animating Factor is the animator of the animation. Is that right?

It is my own way and my own words for expressing the Unified Field. I already told you this. That would make the Animating Factor or "Unified Field" the hypothetical original force or field from which all the other known forces emerged. No, there was no creation or creator involved. It was a matter of transformation.

 

[godnotgod]

I have no desire whatsoever to make science align or conform to my beliefs. I align my beliefs with science. .

You've added another dimension to 'The Unified Field' idea by terming it 'The Animating Factor'. It changes the meaning of 'out of this comes...', to 'this is the animating agent that does this'.

 

[godnotgod]

It is my own way and my own words for expressing the Unified Field. I already told you this. That would make the Animating Factor or "Unified Field" the hypothetical original force or field from which all the other known forces emerged. No, there was no creation or creator involved. It was a matter of transformation.

The 'Animating Factor' is something that animates something. It is the animator of that which is being animated. Duality This is quite different than the idea of the Unified Field, which is the whole enchilada. 'Factor' is always a part of a greater whole. It is misleading.

factor
1.
a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome.

synonyms: element, part, component, ingredient, strand, constituent, point, detail, item, feature, facet, aspect, characteristic, consideration, influence, circumstance

...all of which are part of the whole. a factor is an influential piece of something. Unified Field is Everything.