Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

There is the concept / model of the electron, besides the actual electron. I say to place the concept of the electron, in the framework of the theory of everything.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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?

1 is derived from 0, by rewriting the 0. Rewriting is when you present the same information in another form. Like the pits on a dvd can be rewritten as electrons in RAM memory. Pits are rewritten as electrons, the 0 is rewritten as a 1. The principle mathematical relationship between 0 and 1 is therefore boolean interchangeability. So that is how mathematics is ordered by 0, and then this can be expanded to derive all mathematical operators, and natural numbers, and surreal numbers etc. (not that I actually understand how to derive that)

 

[godnotgod]

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.

But there is no 'I' involved that is making any such choice. You are one with the experience of the frog leaping into the pond with a splash. There is no subject/object arrangement here. Otherwise it would not be spontaneous. Only immediately AFTER the experience does one think 'I heard the frog splash'. No, you didn't. There was only the hearing of the splash and nothing more in that precise moment. No choice. No chooser. Not even a 'hear-er'.

I fail to understand your last sentence.

 

[godnotgod]

There is the concept / model of the electron, besides the actual electron. I say to place the concept of the electron, in the framework of the theory of everything.

How many steps removed from reality is that?

BTW, we now have mathematical evidence that all of the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But there is no 'I' involved that is making any such choice. You are one with the experience of the frog leaping into the pond with a splash. There is no subject/object arrangement here. Otherwise it would not be spontaneous. Only immediately AFTER the experience does one think 'I heard the frog splash'. No, you didn't. There was only the hearing of the splash and nothing more in that precise moment. No choice. No chooser.

I fail to understand your last sentence.

Again, when you ignore common discourse, and the logic in it, then your ideas have nothing to do with beauty, love, goodness as the terms are used in common discourse. And then you are only engaged in a monumental task of redefinition of every word. The subjective / objective difference is the difference between chooser and chosen, you apparently use some other definition, and I have lost track of what you mean.

I think you will find that if you investigate common discourse, that it uses the logic of freedom and choosing in regards to opinion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1 is derived from 0, by rewriting the 0. Rewriting is when you present the same information in another form. Like the pits on a dvd can be rewritten as electrons in RAM memory. Pits are rewritten as electrons, the 0 is rewritten as a 1. The principle mathematical relationship between 0 and 1 is therefore boolean interchangeability. So that is how mathematics is ordered by 0, and then this can be expanded to derive all mathematical operators, and natural numbers, and surreal numbers etc. (not that I actually understand how to derive that)

I think I follow you...but does not this just mean the zero is the center or reference for the particular application... I understand this, and it works fine, but the reference/center is only a virtual one and not really the center of the real...and so will never lead to apprehension of the real... I don't doubt the utility of mathematics, and especially Boolean logic....but the whole...the one...is forever on the other side of models....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How many steps removed from reality is that?

BTW, we now have mathematical evidence that all of the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, created by fluctuations in the Quantum and Higgs Fields.

The model is 1 step removed from the real thing itself I suppose.

So what if it is virtual. It does not mean that concreteness is incorrect I think, it only explains how that concreteness is built up.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think I follow you...but does not this just mean the zero is the center or reference for the particular application... I understand this, and it works fine, but the reference/center is only a virtual one and not really the center of the real...and so will never lead to apprehension of the real... I don't doubt the utility of mathematics, and especially Boolean logic....but the whole...the one...is forever on the other side of models....

One can also remove the 0, and not even have nothing. Then one is left with the spiritual domain. And what is in it, is a matter of opinion, and an opinion is arrived at by choosing it. So then one can choose that the spiritual domain is empty, by expression of emotion with free will. That is a logically valid opinion. And a charmingly pathetic opinion, in my opinion.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, and that's where the problem lies.

You're still seeing problems? What problems?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

One can also remove the 0, and not even have nothing. Then one is left with the spiritual domain. And what is in it, is a matter of opinion, and an opinion is arrived at by choosing it. So then one can choose that the spiritual domain is empty, by expression of emotion with free will. That is a logically valid opinion. And a charmingly pathetic opinion, in my opinion.

Seems like a mind game to me....as is all conceptualization in the context of God...but if on the whole it has utility in this world...fine..

 

[godnotgod]

The model is 1 step removed from the real thing itself I suppose.

So what if it is virtual. It does not mean that concreteness is incorrect I think, it only explains how that concreteness is built up.

It does, which renders the 'concreteness' completely virtual, whereas we previously thought it concrete. The illusion of concreteness is an illusion on a level higher than your ordinary garden variety illusion, partly because it does not vanish as ordinary illusions do. It can be felt, heard, seen, tasted, and smelled, all of which are perceptual reality. But now Quantum Physics is showing us a different world, which the mystics have been pointing to for centuries.

 

[godnotgod]

You're still seeing problems? What problems?

Turning the simplicity of just seeing things as they are into something more complex, when it isn't.

 

[godnotgod]

The subjective / objective difference is the difference between chooser and chosen, you apparently use some other definition, and I have lost track of what you mean.

'Chooser' and 'chosen' are just concepts based on a false idea of observer and observed. I am saying that to see things as they really are, rather than just a skeletal model of what they are, the two must merge as one. To do this requires for the thinking mind to stop entirely, and for just seeing alone to come into play. Once the nature of things is seen correctly, then right thinking will naturally follow.

Trying to make reality fit a conceptual model just won't work, except, as ben d pointed out, but as means to serve utility and prediction, is fine.

 

[godnotgod]

....but if on the whole it has utility in this world...fine..

...and that is all it will have, as getting to the heart of the matter requires a very different kind of approach. Not saying that science and modelling is wrong perse; far from it; but only that it is out of context to reality itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

...and that is all it will have, as getting to the heart of the matter requires a very different kind of approach. Not saying that science and modelling is wrong perse; far from it; but only that it is out of context to reality itself.

Quite so...and though it is valid expression of the one life....for those who are astute in the religious sense...one can not serve two masters without serving one second best....it is either salvation (transcending of maya) now.....or a later now..

 

[Unification]

1 is derived from 0, by rewriting the 0. Rewriting is when you present the same information in another form. Like the pits on a dvd can be rewritten as electrons in RAM memory. Pits are rewritten as electrons, the 0 is rewritten as a 1. The principle mathematical relationship between 0 and 1 is therefore boolean interchangeability. So that is how mathematics is ordered by 0, and then this can be expanded to derive all mathematical operators, and natural numbers, and surreal numbers etc. (not that I actually understand how to derive that)

You're very right in what you say...
Mathematics is based on 0=0, empty sets and nothing. But that nothing would be pure consciousness, primordial consciousness, cosmic consciousness, pure energy/pure light... whatever one wishes to call such.

Our brains and bodies also would be complex mathematical formulas that interpret other complex mathematical formulas. I would just prefer to call it a brain rather than a complex mathematical formula. Or if I pick up a leaf, I prefer to experience/know a leaf as opposed to just picking up and processing another mathematical formula. By all means, that's the process that occurs though.

The brain and body process information with its logic gates of the cranial nerves, using Boolean, some have penetrated beyond those gates and experienced the awe, magificent, wonderful, whole mind... the pearly wisdom gates.

We would have to think of energy as information in motion. In-formation. In-form. Wave-particle. Waves in form. It's all electric.

Without awareness, there would be no such thing as mathematics. Deducing and regressing.... all there is is mind. Whether our awareness/memory is a field of waves/electromagnetic energy or consciousness. There is nothing to base, define, experiment, understand without awareness.

We can base reality off of nothing, empty sets, and mathematics.... but that nothing is still something and it's consciousness, conscious energy, conscious light..... Whatever we personally like as its name.

For me, it makes the most sense to understand and know the virtual particles, photon's, waves, etc. and see how they are experimented. They do the same things within our own bodies. But it's the reality and experience of them that matters, not so much having knowledge of them.

There is still that powerful driving source that is beyond logic and explanation... it just is and can only be experienced.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Turning the simplicity of just seeing things as they are into something more complex, when it isn't.

Nature presents us with simple and complex arrangements. There is no problem with and nothing unnatural about seeing it as such.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Anyone who thinks their viewpoint, or religion, or methodology has all the answers is full of s**t. No one has all the answers.

 

[Unification]

You're still seeing problems? What problems?

I don't see any problems. One is just robotic and mathematical and we know that the human being's experience is beyond the robotic and mathematical.

We are all walking pseudoscientists, defying logic, reason, scientific physical laws. Some prefer to know/experience themselves deeper than that.

Again, I really do admire the simplicity but reality and experience run much deeper. There is no problem and nothing is needed, only if one wants to go beyond and discover/experience/grow and know themselves more.

I think the problem lies with those that scrutinize others for going beyond closed gates and boundaries. It's as if it's offensive to some.

 

[Unification]

Anyone who thinks their viewpoint, or religion, or methodology has all the answers is full of s**t. No one has all the answers.

You're right, but

That's really not what anyone is talking about, it's not about having all-knowledge and all of the answers. It's about knowing, understanding, and realization of oneself.