Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Ben Dhyan]

Well a model is also reality of course. To point out insufficiencies in the model, does not deny that modelling is the proper procedure for doing science, it rather confirms it by saying it is an insufficiency. You would want to make progress in getting rid of insufficiencies, and progress can and is being made. It makes no sense that you give up on having an exhaustive 1 to 1 model.

That mathematics is the theory of everything suggests that our minds, as excellent modellers of the universe, are little universes in their own right, that minds have the same mathematical ordering as the universe proper, that they are also ordered by zero as mathematics is ordered by zero.

So to say, a mathematical model of the earth has to be placed in the framework of the general ordering of mathematics, the theory of everything. I think that is the more important point than what is also true, that many aspects of the earth only exist in relation to other objects like the sun.

I get it...but mathematics is a symbolic language to represent the qualitative and quantitative aspects of reality.....it is a symbolic language that is an interpretation of the reality under study..not the reality itself.. Of course it is a great way of learning about the universe we live in and in applying the science gained to help humanity on its evolutionary journey...but it is not a tool that can help souls attain salvation for it does not deal with the real thing...the underlying transcendent unity of all that is.. God.... see my sig line...

 

[godnotgod]

Obviously, I can't speak for Bendy, but my experience was that it was most certainly aware though it did take a bit to get its attention. It's sort of like what a microbe would have to do to get your attention. It was certainly like that during my visits with Vishnu.

It's not like that, because you yourself are the Universe.

 

[godnotgod]

...mathematics is a symbolic language .... that is an interpretation of the reality under study....not the reality itself.....it does not deal with the real thing...the underlying transcendent unity of all that is.....

Here again, a crucial point: get the Reality first, then the description of the Reality can properly be understood in the context of Reality itself, and not the other way around as so many of us would have it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here again, a crucial point: get the Reality first, then the description of the Reality can properly be understood in the context of Reality itself, and not the other way around as so many of us would have it.

Exactly......btw, you know there is no greater number than one....the universe comprises all that is...all conceptualized aspects that constitute it are in truth fractions of one.....one contains all....one is the all...the all is an infinite number of individual aspects....take one of those aspects in the context of the one reality to see where it fits mathematically ....what is one over infinity?...haha.... Seriously...that is the way I see the universe....every thing from a galaxies to an electron are a fractional part of the one...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I get it...but mathematics is a symbolic language to represent the qualitative and quantitative aspects of reality.....it is a symbolic language that is an interpretation of the reality under study..not the reality itself.. Of course it is a great way of learning about the universe we live in and in applying the science gained to help humanity on its evolutionary journey...but it is not a tool that can help souls attain salvation for it does not deal with the real thing...the underlying transcendent unity of all that is.. God.... see my sig line...

Semiotics, the study of symbols, is a prime candidate for providing good general scientific theory.

Obviously the theory of everything does not include subjective issues relevant to agency, like the existence of God, love, or hate, where the conclusion whether it is real or not is reached by choosing it. The theory of everything only includes reaching the conclusion by copying from nature.

 

[godnotgod]

Exactly......btw, you know there is no greater number than one....the universe comprises all that is...all conceptualized aspects that constitute it are in truth fractions of one.....one contains all....one is the all...the all is an infinite number of individual aspects....take one of those aspects in the context of reality to see where it fits mathemtically ....what is one over infinity?...haha.... Seriously...that is the way I see the universe....every thing from a galaxies to an electron are a fractional part of the one...

Then, too, each fractional part is also the Whole. That is a Buddha.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's much simpler than all that.

Mathematics is the clinical, even sterile, analysis and description of the universe as an object with white gloves on, but still doesn't tell us what the universe actually IS.

The description is not that which is described.

When you, subjectively, experience a model, it's not the same thing as experiencing that which it models.

 

[godnotgod]

The theory of everything only includes reaching the conclusion by copying from nature.

But here we have an oxymoron, as 'theory' is never a conclusion.

To get to conclusion, you've got to leave all methodologies behind, merging with, not copying, nature.

 

[godnotgod]

When you, subjectively, experience a model, it's not the same thing as experiencing that which it models.

Ha...BINGO! Try telling that to millions and millions who think that the model (ie; concept0 of life is the reality!

Bottom line: we convince ourselves that the imitation of life we live really IS life.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Semiotics, the study of symbols, is a prime candidate for providing good general scientific theory.

Obviously the theory of everything does not include subjective issues relevant to agency, like the existence of God, love, or hate, where the conclusion whether it is real or not is reached by choosing it. The theory of everything only includes reaching the conclusion by copying from nature.

God is both immanent in and transcendent to the universe ....mathematics can only serve a practical application in the manifested portion that can be detected....as it stands now...that is only 2.5% of the theoretical total.....of that 2.5%...there is still much to learn...perhaps understanding what an electron really is would be a good start before trying to model the macro...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But here we have an oxymoron, as 'theory' is never a conclusion.

To get to conclusion, you've got to leave all methodologies behind, merging with, not copying, nature.

There are 2 basic methods shown in common discourse. Fact, which uses a logic of cause and effect, the thing modelled as a cause forces to produce an exhaustive model of it in it's effect. And besides that there is opinion, where someone chooses about what is that chooses (agency) resulting in an opinion. One cannot ignore the obvious logic in language relevant to fact and opinion.

So it means to experience an object, one has to, uh sort of, relate their own choices, to the choices by which the thing comes to be, and variations on that principle.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then, too, each fractional part is also the Whole. That is a Buddha.

The fractional part is in fact an indivisible aspect of the one....this discussion takes place in a world of maya where duality reigns...

 

[godnotgod]

(As I understand it, Spiny was last seen wending his way up a remote mountainside, 5 mules following, heavily-laden with signed copies of "The Chopra Suttras".)

 

[godnotgod]

There are 2 basic methods shown in common discourse. Fact, which uses a logic of cause and effect, the thing modelled as a cause forces to produce an exhaustive model of it in it's effect. And besides that there is opinion, where someone chooses about what is that chooses (agency) resulting in an opinion. One cannot ignore the obvious logic in language relevant to fact and opinion.

So it means to experience an object, one has to, uh sort of, relate their own choices, to the choices by which the thing comes to be, and variations on that principle.

Sounds like the 'experience' you describe is a controlled experiment.

What is the immediate, spontaneous experience of

frogpondleapsplash ?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

God is both immanent in and transcendent to the universe ....mathematics can only serve a practical application in the manifested portion that can be detected....as it stands now...that is only 2.5% of the theoretical total.....of that 2.5%...there is still much to learn...perhaps understanding what an electron really is would be a good start before trying to model the macro...

Any knowledge about an electron must be put in a framework of the theory of everything, which is mathematics ordered by zero, and not be put into the framework of a hodge podge collection of all things we happen to know about. If you take the hodge podge approach, then you get such problematic descriptions of the electron wave in terms of it not being a particle. That is you happen to know particles first, then you come up with something different, and describe it in terms of it not being what you already know, rather than what it is.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sounds like the 'experience' you describe is a controlled experiment.

What is the immediate, spontaneous experience of

frogpondleapsplash ?

Choosing is spontaneity, as any choice can turn out one of several ways in the moment. You must have an erronuous notion of choosing based on sorting, which looks a bit similar to choosing, but is completely different.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Any knowledge about an electron must be put in a framework of the theory of everything, which is mathematics ordered by zero, and not be put into the framework of a hodge podge collection of all things we happen to know about. If you take the hodge podge approach, then you get such problematic descriptions of the electron wave in terms of it not being a particle. That is you happen to know particles first, then you come up with something different, and describe it in terms of it not being what you already know, rather than what it is.

Why ordered by zero which number represents a hypothetical reality which does not and can never exist (except in the relative sense)... Why not ONE which is a known reality....the universe...and everything referenced to that reality? Iow, if one really wants understanding, its foundation should be based on reality, not non-reality?

 

[godnotgod]

Choosing is spontaneity, as any choice can turn out one of several ways in the moment. You must have an erronuous notion of choosing based on sorting, which looks a bit similar to choosing, but is completely different.

There is no choosing in a truly spontaneous experience. The spontaneous experience IS the way it turns out, or rather, IS.

 

[godnotgod]

Any knowledge about an electron must be put in a framework of the theory of everything...

What? You're saying to place non-conceptual reality into a conceptual framework in order to get a handle on reality?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is no choosing in a truly spontaneous experience. The spontaneous experience IS the way it turns out.

With spontaneity, like girls giggling, you will aways see lots of variation, and the variation indicates choosing, that it can turn out several different ways in the moment. So you can see that with happiness one just produces random formless rubbish in the world, only the spirit, the agency of the decision is relevant.

Again, you have a wrong notion of choosing based on sorting, this is a very common misconception.