If "everything is energy" then what does this mean?

[Runewolf1973]

Well, speak for yourself. I am not even going to address this part of your reply.

Are you smart enough, however, to redirect your attention back to my question, which is to address the content of my post which argues that only Nothingness is capable of being the origin for an infinite Universe? I am providing a logical argument for the question. If there is a flaw in this logic, then by all means, reveal that flaw.

Logically, nothingness is not capable of anything.

 

[godnotgod]

Logically, nothingness is not capable of anything.

Ah, but it is the single most capable condition, in that it is Emptiness at its most allowing. Everything can fit into infinite Nothingness. It is not capable in any active sense, but in a completely passive one. It is simply present at all times, making Whatever possible. This is bordering on Quantum Physics, which talks about this Universe being pure potential.

Think about it.

Emptiness is essential to fullness, as in 'glass of water'.

A blank piece of paper is essential to writing content.

Space is essential to Solid.

Silence is essential to Sound.

Nothingness is essential to Everything.

I added to my previous post. Please take a look at the part about 'change as the fundamental reality'.

 

[idav]

Everything can fit into infinite Nothingness.

Not really, nothingness means non-existence. At the singularity things would have been more active and chaotic not more static and unchanging.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Ah, but it is the single most capable condition, in that it is reality at its most allowing. Everything can fit into infinite Nothingness. It is not capable in any active sense, but in a completely passive one. It is simply present at all times, making Whatever possible. This is bordering on Quantum Physics, which talks about this Universe being pure potential.

I added to my previous post. Please take a look at the part about 'change as the fundamental reality'.

Change is readily demonstrable, observable and consistent throughout the universe, so no I do not wish to retract my position. Just because you can take an empty word and fill it with whatever is in your imagination does not make it true.

 

[godnotgod]

Not really, nothingness means non-existence. At the singularity things would have been more active and chaotic not more static and unchanging.

Activity and chaos are only possible against a background of stasis and changelessness. Otherwise, how would you know there is activity and chaos?

If Nothingness means non-existence, then it must also mean existence, because Nothingness is The Absolute, against which existence/non-existence are occurring/not-occurring as the relative duality.

 

[godnotgod]

Change is readily demonstrable, observable and consistent throughout the universe, so no I do not wish to retract my position. Just because you can take an empty word and fill it with whatever is in your imagination does not make it true.

Again, address my argument directly, instead of just tossing out accusations.

Is it possible that such demonstrable, observable, and consistent change is still illusory, rather than the fundamental reality as you claim, and that the vast canvas of Nothingness and Changelessness is the background against which 'change' is seemingly occurring? If you say 'yes', then it means stupid ape still does not know enough to make such a positive statement.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Again, address my argument directly, instead of just tossing out accusations.

Is it possible that such demonstrable, observable, and consistent change is still illusory, rather than the fundamental reality as you claim, and that the vast canvas of Nothingness and Changelessness is the background against which 'change' is seemingly occurring? If you say 'yes', then it means stupid ape still does not know enough to make such a positive statement.

Stupid ape is not smart enough to know the answers to such questions, but smart enough to know that you don't have those answers either.

 

[idav]

Activity and chaos are only possible against a background of stasis and changelessness. Otherwise, how would you know there is activity and chaos?

Thats like asking how do we know energy is energetic. Pure active energy is outside of time simply put, cooled and slowed down matter becomes caught in the fabric of space-time, but that is an illusion for matter which is really another form of energy.

 

[godnotgod]

Thats like asking how do we know energy is energetic.

No, it is not. It is asking how you can identify energy as energy. There has to be a reference, and that reference is the background of no-energy, or Nothingness.

Pure active energy is outside of time simply put, cooled and slowed down matter becomes caught in the fabric of space-time, but that is an illusion for matter which is really another form of energy.

Science talks about the very first moments of the Big Bang, and how certain events occurred in x amount of time. Those first moments were about pure active energy. But if you are going to argue that pure active energy is outside of time, then in the same breath you are also saying it is outside of space. Is that so?

 

[godnotgod]

Stupid ape is not smart enough to know the answers to such questions, but smart enough to know that you don't have those answers either.

Very well, then. This discussion is over, as you have now admitted that you are not smart enough to know that your dictum that 'change is the fundamental reality' is actually the case.

Would you still care to address my actual argument that only that which is infinite in nature, ie; 'Nothingness', can contain the vast limitless Universe? If you disagree, you can argue that the finite is capable of somehow doing so.

 

[idav]

No, it is not. It is asking how you can identify energy as energy. There has to be a reference, and that reference is the background of no-energy, or Nothingness.



Science talks about the very first moments of the Big Bang, and how certain events occurred in x amount of time. Those first moments were about pure active energy. But if you are going to argue that pure active energy is outside of time, then in the same breath you are also saying it is outside of space. Is that so?

Yes it would be everywhere and everytime. The singularity started from every point in space since it really is like stretching space from a single point. Maybe it would not be exactly zero I'm not sure, thats where scientists start saying things like "physics breaks" and things of that nature.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He will surely tell you that the reason for all things we see or all things that happen in the universe is pure and absolute nothingness.

Perhaps it is. I do not deny it. Science does not deny it. 'Many-universes theory' - popping in and out of 'absolute nothingness'. Only that we do not know it yet for sure. The universe is great fun.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Very well, then. This discussion is over, as you have now admitted that you are not smart enough to know that your dictum that 'change is the fundamental reality' is actually the case.

Would you still care to address my actual argument that only that which is infinite in nature, ie; 'Nothingness', can contain the vast limitless Universe? If you disagree, you can argue that the finite is capable of somehow doing so.

All I can say is that change appears to be fundamental. It is directly observed and there is plenty of evidence to support it.

Nothingness can contain just that...nothing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Perhaps it is. I do not deny it. Science does not deny it 'Many-universes theory' - popping in and out of 'absolute nothingness'. Only that we do not know it yet for sure. The universe is great fun.

I don't necessarily deny it either. It is a possibility. I just do not like how Godnotgod states his position as though he is so sure of it. He doesn't know anymore than any of us.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes it would be everywhere and everytime. The singularity started from every point in space since it really is like stretching space from a single point. Maybe it would not be exactly zero I'm not sure, thats where scientists start saying things like "physics breaks" and things of that nature.

Did you watch this video?

Physics breaks. As Kaku is intelligent enough to observe: 'Nature is smarter than we are'

Again, it is believed that Space-Time BEGAN with the singularity; therefore, it cannot have 'started from every point in space', as space and time did not yet exist. It must have been an event NOT in Space-Time, Space-Time being only conceptual by nature.

 

[godnotgod]

All I can say is that change appears to be fundamental. It is directly observed and there is plenty of evidence to support it.

Nothingness can contain just that...nothing.

Can an empty glass only contain emptiness?

'appears' to be fundamental, as in 'appearance'. In fact, you cannot even state that, as you may be observing the end result of how The Changeless is manifesting itself, thinking it to be fundamental, when it is actually the outcome. You are still operating within the sphere of perceptual reality, where appearances abound. You observe what you think is change, and verify its reality because you can observe it. But that is illogical. Mere observation does not automatically mean that what you observe is real. I keep telling you that the phenomenal world is illusion of a higher calibre than ordinary illusion, and difficult to detect as such. Only an awakened consciousness can do so. The evidence which supports change as real is also obtained via perceptual reality. For a long time, we were certain that the mass of the atom was real, a notion now overturned by Quantum Mechanics. If the mass of the atom is not real, then everything built upon it is also not real. If that is the case, then there is nothing that is changing. Change is a total illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't necessarily deny it either. It is a possibility. I just do not like how Godnotgod states his position as though he is so sure of it. He doesn't know anymore than any of us.

I have been trying to get you to use your own revered tools of Logic and Reason, but so far, you fly off into other directions. Can you answer the question?:

"Can a limitless Universe come about via a finite 'something'? This is saying that infinity itself emerged from the finite.

If you watch the video I posted about the collapse of physics, you will see that Kaku is perplexed by the series of mathematical 'infinities' his calculations come up with, but this is not a mystery to the mystic. Any idea why?

 

[godnotgod]

I can agree with that much but we get into some word play. What do you think all the stuff was doing before it occurred. Change is possible outside of time, in fact outside of time things are more powerful, faster, more energy and more change. We get stuck in space time because matter is slowed down, cooled down compared to the pure energy.

What stuff? What you call 'stuff' I am calling an illusion of 'stuff'. There is no stuff that changes in time. All are illusions. Only The Changeless Absolute is real, playing itself as The Stuff. Get it? And it all is not-occurring in no-Time and no-Space. It only APPEARS to be occurring in Space-Time. Enter Quantum Physics, confirming that the mass of the atom is created by fluctuations in the Unified Field, mass that is not real, mass that cannot change in Time or Space.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All I can say is that change appears to be fundamental.

I take it to be a property of 'Brahman'. But it is not really a change because it happens all the time and never stops. So, in that way it can be termed as 'no change - no change from the previous situation'. Change would be when it stops. So, perhaps we know at least one thing about Brahman.

Again, it is believed that Space-Time BEGAN with the singularity; ..

Believed is what is not yet proved. We can't be categorical.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I have been trying to get you to use your own revered tools of Logic and Reason, but so far, you fly off into other directions. Can you answer the question?:

"Can a limitless Universe come about via a finite 'something'? This is saying that infinity itself emerged from the finite.

If you watch the video I posted about the collapse of physics, you will see that Kaku is perplexed by the series of mathematical 'infinities' his calculations come up with, but this is not a mystery to the mystic. Any idea why?

I believe change to be infinite and perpetual, so your question doesn't make sense to me because I don't consider that "something" to be finite.