The Void, Emptiness, and Infinite or Eternal

[dybmh]

the word infinite is not plural. it's singular. it's a singularity.

The word is singular, but it is still a form, and it is still contrasted with its contents. Here is a list of examples:

The set of natural numbers is infinte and definable.
The set of integers is infinite and definable.
The set of real numbers is infinite and definable.
The set or irrational numbers is infinite and definable.
The broadband spectrum is infinite and definable.
The electromagnetic spectrum is infinite and definable.
ANY AND ALL spectrums are infinite and definable.

Please note: you are speaking about a word and a general concept.

If you choose to shift to THE singualrity which is defined in theoretical physics in the big-bang-theory, THAT singularity is a form, and it only existed prior to the big-bang.

If you are thinking of something else, then you'll need to describe it.

the absolute, or whole without otherness isn't definable. it literally has no definition

You just defined it: "without otherness" It is in partnership with "otherness". it is contrasted with "otherness". Dual.

archimedes and the bathtub example you gave.

Oh. Well. To answer your question from the previous reply. It is relevant to bring Archimedes because you challended me to measure infinite concepts without a fixed point of reference. I met that challenge by using "Archimedes bathtub". Then you changed the subject to this new word "singularity" tto be considered in isolation and seemed to ignore the fact that I met your challenge successfully.

i never used the term nearly.

But the concepts you have described are all forms. That means they are all incomplete. They are not absolutely literally infinite. They are all at best nearly infinte, because they are not infinite in all manner and in all dimensions.

the infinite is amorphous.

That is one version of infinite. But amorphous is still a form. Imagine the blob from the classic movie. That is amorphous, but it is still a form. And this is important.

Formless does not entail infinite. So if something is amorphous that doesn't mean it is true to consider it infinite. And if it is infinite, that does not entail that it is amorphous.

Infinite is not connected to amorphous in a direct relationship

Using logical notation:

Infinite --> Amorphous = FALSE
Amorphous --> Infinite = FALSE

Infinite = Amorphous = FALSE
Amorphous = Infinite = FALSE

Just because you have decided that these two go together always and forver, doen't make it true and consistent. It's just a choice that you are making.

it can't be defined unless there is otherness and then it wouldn't be infinite. it would be delimited by the otherness.

And there is otherness, you are just denying it. It's no different than closing ones eyes, or wrapping their head in a towel.

If you like the word/concept of singularity, then, you would have to go back in time billions of years to get there in order to assimilate back into THE "singularity". But that is not now.

From a theological framework, let's say, from the perspective of the Jewish philosophers, this "singularity" is the "only-God-reality-before-creation". But, creation happened, according to that framework. We can talk about ways to consider the sort of reality, one can approach it, but never reach it. Yes, that is disappointing for those who want to be "one-with-God" or perhaps link-up western religious theology with eastern philolosphy. But that's just the way it is, these are two different paradigms.

But.

There's ways to bring these things together. I can help with that. But we would need to work together. That includes agreeing on which terms to use, and then we stick to those terms.

that which is undefinable and has no otherness to contrast against. it is literally the whole

This is not infinite, do you realize that? It is lacking everything. Which means it is not infinite by definition.

no i'm talking about the absolute, or whole

If it is "that which is undefinable and has no otherness to contrast against." then it is not infinite.

the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts because the parts are definable and contrasted against each other, not the whole.

the whole is not greater if there is literally nothing to contrast against it. it is not infinite at all.

but there is only one infinite as a whole even if their are attributes or forms within it.

that depends on the domain. if there is nothing else in the domain except for this "infinite as whole", then yes, it is the only one, because it is the only thing in the domain.

ineffable simply means to be indescribable, or undefinable.

It means that there are no words to fully describe it.

the whole as an infinite is undefinable.

You defined it just a few sentences ago.

really bad example because these are only linear examples. the whole, the infinite i'm speaking of isn't linear

You said: "an infinite isn't definable, or describable."

Then I produced a list of examples which are both infinite and definable. This is why precise language is needed. Just two little letters "a-n" makes a big difference.

the irony of all this is that change is inevitable. self-perpetuating because I WILL BE what I WIll BE

Only from the finite perspective.
From the infinite perspective it is all concurrent.

Are you aware that the-name is NOT "I will be what I will be"? It is יהוה. "I will be what I will be" would be something like יהיהיהיה.

I didn't mention it in the oother thread, but, when you claimed the end is the beginning and the beginning is the end, that doesn't mean everything dies even angels. It's the opposite. "the end is the beginning and the beginning is the end" means nothing ever actually dies. Birth, death, life, all moments are concurrent. That is what it would be like if any of us were literally absolutely infinite and ahd the perspective of God. That pretty much gaurantees, that none of us are God. We're all finite. There is inherent duality, but it can be denied.

 

[Fool]

The word is singular, but it is still a form, and it is still contrasted with its contents. Here is a list of examples:

The set of natural numbers is infinte and definable.
The set of integers is infinite and definable.
The set of real numbers is infinite and definable.
The set or irrational numbers is infinite and definable.
The broadband spectrum is infinite and definable.
The electromagnetic spectrum is infinite and definable.
ANY AND ALL spectrums are infinite and definable.

Please note: you are speaking about a word and a general concept.

If you choose to shift to THE singualrity which is defined in theoretical physics in the big-bang-theory, THAT singularity is a form, and it only existed prior to the big-bang.

If you are thinking of something else, then you'll need to describe it.



You just defined it: "without otherness" It is in partnership with "otherness". it is contrasted with "otherness". Dual.



Oh. Well. To answer your question from the previous reply. It is relevant to bring Archimedes because you challended me to measure infinite concepts without a fixed point of reference. I met that challenge by using "Archimedes bathtub". Then you changed the subject to this new word "singularity" tto be considered in isolation and seemed to ignore the fact that I met your challenge successfully.



But the concepts you have described are all forms. That means they are all incomplete. They are not absolutely literally infinite. They are all at best nearly infinte, because they are not infinite in all manner and in all dimensions.



That is one version of infinite. But amorphous is still a form. Imagine the blob from the classic movie. That is amorphous, but it is still a form. And this is important.

Formless does not entail infinite. So if something is amorphous that doesn't mean it is true to consider it infinite. And if it is infinite, that does not entail that it is amorphous.

Infinite is not connected to amorphous in a direct relationship

Using logical notation:

Infinite --> Amorphous = FALSE
Amorphous --> Infinite = FALSE

Infinite = Amorphous = FALSE
Amorphous = Infinite = FALSE

Just because you have decided that these two go together always and forver, doen't make it true and consistent. It's just a choice that you are making.


View attachment 83645



And there is otherness, you are just denying it. It's no different than closing ones eyes, or wrapping their head in a towel.

If you like the word/concept of singularity, then, you would have to go back in time billions of years to get there in order to assimilate back into THE "singularity". But that is not now.

From a theological framework, let's say, from the perspective of the Jewish philosophers, this "singularity" is the "only-God-reality-before-creation". But, creation happened, according to that framework. We can talk about ways to consider the sort of reality, one can approach it, but never reach it. Yes, that is disappointing for those who want to be "one-with-God" or perhaps link-up western religious theology with eastern philolosphy. But that's just the way it is, these are two different paradigms.

But.

There's ways to bring these things together. I can help with that. But we would need to work together. That includes agreeing on which terms to use, and then we stick to those terms.



This is not infinite, do you realize that? It is lacking everything. Which means it is not infinite by definition.



If it is "that which is undefinable and has no otherness to contrast against." then it is not infinite.



the whole is not greater if there is literally nothing to contrast against it. it is not infinite at all.



that depends on the domain. if there is nothing else in the domain except for this "infinite as whole", then yes, it is the only one, because it is the only thing in the domain.



It means that there are no words to fully describe it.



You defined it just a few sentences ago.



You said: "an infinite isn't definable, or describable."

Then I produced a list of examples which are both infinite and definable. This is why precise language is needed. Just two little letters "a-n" makes a big difference.



Only from the finite perspective.
From the infinite perspective it is all concurrent.

Are you aware that the-name is NOT "I will be what I will be"? It is יהוה. "I will be what I will be" would be something like יהיהיהיה.

I didn't mention it in the oother thread, but, when you claimed the end is the beginning and the beginning is the end, that doesn't mean everything dies even angels. It's the opposite. "the end is the beginning and the beginning is the end" means nothing ever actually dies. Birth, death, life, all moments are concurrent. That is what it would be like if any of us were literally absolutely infinite and ahd the perspective of God. That pretty much gaurantees, that none of us are God. We're all finite. There is inherent duality, but it can be denied.

the infinite is permanent, it's attributes are impermanent. this is the underlying problem with pluralities, dualities, and forms. The absolute, the infinite, the whole encompasses and inhabits all space and time. otherwise it couldn't be absolute or infinite.

a frame, or snap shot in time/space is not the same as the whole. the next frame will be different, the whole or infinite will not

the uncertainty principle comes to mind. you can know the speed or the position but you can never know it's end or begininng. this again is directly related to the idea of space and time but when this can only be measured in relationship to the illusion of permanency in space and time.

in hinduism its the similar idea of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman.

 

[dybmh]

the infinite is permanent, it's attributes are impermanent.

No. It cannot be infinite if any part of it is temporal.

this is the underlying problem with pluralities, dualities, and forms. The absolute, the infinite, the whole encompasses and inhabits all space and time. otherwise it couldn't be absolute or infinite.

You just contradicted yourself. If it's attributes are impermanent/temporal, then it does not inhabit all space and time.

a frame, or snap shot in time/space is not the same as the whole. the next frame will be different, the whole or infinite will not

Now you just flip-flopped back. Are the attributes impermanent/temporal or not? Choose one and stick with it, please. This is what I was talking about. These concepts require consistent language, else the speaker/author is inevitably going to contradict themself.

the uncertainty principle comes to mind. you can know the speed or the position but you can never know it's end or begininng. this again is directly related to the idea of space and time but when this can only be measured in relationship to the illusion of permanency in space and time.

It has no relevance in the context of something which is absolutley literally infinite. All speeds and all positions are concurrent for the absolutely literally infinite. Please. Try to keep in mind. As soon as something is lacking, one tiny little blip, the tiniest speck of an idea, whatever... it is not infinite. It cannot be lacking ... absolutely no lack at all, OK?

Because of this, each and every moment, each and every object, each and every action, each and every idea... etc, etc, all of it is concurrent.

For events, they have a beginning and an end associated to them as attributes of the event itself. But that does not require time to be flowing. The event exists, and the timeline exists, as a consequence of these attributes "beginning" and "ending" being associated witth each event. But each event can stack up like a deck of cards. The deck doesn't need to be laid out in order. They still have numbers and suits printed on them. From this a timeline ( actually infinite timelines ) can be developed. But all of those events from all of those infinite timelines are concurrent. Again, just like stacking up a deck of cards. An infinite stack. Each card is an event. The different suits, clubss, spade, diaminds, hearts, etc... would be different timelines in this analogy. Ther could be infinite many suits, and infinite many timelines with infinite events... all of it concurrent.

If you can hold this in your mind, I think that will do a lot of good when discussing this thing you want to call "the absolute". But, it's important to take it out of the box of pantheism, it's not that. It's not a dot. And yes, that means that actions have consequences on a cosmic scale. This is something that many are, forgive me, hoping to avoid or escape. It doesn't mean that one is not forgiven, though, because the forgiveness is concurrent as well. But the downside is, the consequences, the punishements are also concurrent, never ending.

in hinduism its the similar idea of nirguna brahman and saguna brahman.

They're not absolutely infinite if they are lacking.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Void, Emptiness

The question is , who created that " Void, Emptiness", please, right??

Regards

 

[dybmh]

The Void, Emptiness

The question is , who created that " Void, Emptiness", please, right??

Regards

My vote: There is no void

 

[Fool]

The Void, Emptiness

The question is , who created that " Void, Emptiness", please, right??

Regards

the void wasn't created. things come from the void

 

[dybmh]

the void wasn't created. things come from the void

This is not consistent with science or reason.

 

[Fool]

This is not consistent with science or reason.

like zero is nothing, it's still something paradox and all +/- numbers are derived from it

Who Invented Zero?

The concept of zero, both as a placeholder and as a symbol for nothing, is a relatively recent development.

www.livescience.com

 

[dybmh]

like zero is nothing, it's still something paradox and all +/- numbers are derived from it

Who Invented Zero?

The concept of zero, both as a placeholder and as a symbol for nothing, is a relatively recent development.

www.livescience.com

Honest questions: Did You Watch This Video? Do You Understand What They Said?

They very cleary stated that the Universe doesn't come from nothing. That the universe ALWAYS existed. Yes there is semantic ( one of the weakest of weak ) argument that can be made that absolute equilibruim is "nothing". But that is false. If the singularity was actually null, in the manner of the components literally canceling each other out and negating each other, the big-bang would not have produced the universe. It's just semantics. Thee speaker says "if you add up all the energy, then it adds to zero." So what? That does not produce a void.

Here's a snippet of the transcrip that confirms what I said. You either, didn't watch it, don't understand it, or are tying to win the debate bassed on posting a video with some buzzwords in the title which can be misunderstood as support for your position.

the void wasn't created. things come from the void

That is not consistent with science nor reason and the video you posted confirms that. The closest you can get is:

Things come from either an equilibruim or an ongoing cycle, but neither of those is void. I have frequently referred you to the DaoDeJing, it is ideal for this as an ancient text describing precisley what is in the video you posted.

 

[Fool]

Honest questions: Did You Watch This Video? Do You Understand What They Said?

They very cleary stated that the Universe doesn't come from nothing. That the universe ALWAYS existed. Yes there is semantic ( one of the weakest of weak ) argument that can be made that absolute equilibruim is "nothing". But that is false. If the singularity was actually null, in the manner of the components literally canceling each other out and negating each other, the big-bang would not have produced the universe. It's just semantics. Thee speaker says "if you add up all the energy, then it adds to zero." So what? That does not produce a void.

Here's a snippet of the transcrip that confirms what I said. You either, didn't watch it, don't understand it, or are tying to win the debate bassed on posting a video with some buzzwords in the title which can be misunderstood as support for your position.





View attachment 83712



That is not consistent with science nor reason and the video you posted confirms that. The closest you can get is:

Things come from either an equilibruim or an ongoing cycle, but neither of those is void. I have frequently referred you to the DaoDeJing, it is ideal for this as an ancient text describing precisley what is in the video you posted.

yes
i watched both videos. In the first video they actually proposed two theories. In the last video the guy talked about something from nothing. never having seen something come from nothing, isn't the same as stating that something can't come from nothing.

the infinite that can be defined, delimited, described is not the enduring and indefinite, or infinite.

i'm going to end my discussion with you on this topic here. You are taking this way to personal.

 

[dybmh]

yes
i watched both videos. In the first video they actually proposed two theories.

Neither of them support anything coming from a void. In fact they say the opposite.

In the last video the guy talked about something from nothing.

You added that one, as an edit. Sorry I didn't watch it. I'll watch to see if it has anything relevant and credible to your asssertiona about the "void".

never having seen something come from nothing, isn't the same as stating that something can't come from nothing.

It is agreeing with what I said "the void wasn't created, everything comes from the void" is not consistent with science and reason.

You would need a scientist or philosopher to actually agree with what you said in order for it tto refute what I said, asssuming that the source didn't make any obvously false presumptions or erroneous logical faults.

the infinite that can be defined, delimited, described is not the enduring and indefinite, or infinite.

True with one small, but important ammendation:

The infinite that can be fully-defined, and delimited, and fully described is not the enduring and indefinite, or infinite.

Since you, and everything else is delimited, that should be proof positive that there is an inherent duality, and none of us are this "enduring, indefinite, infinite".

I still prefer the words, absolutely literally infinite, but, there is nothing false about what you wrote if it includes and the qaulifier "fully".

And you are still neglecting the simple fact, it cannot be infinite if it is lacking. The "void" is lacking everything. It's the opposite of infinite. At best it is only infinite in one specific way. But if that one specific way is extremely idealized, then, all other diemsions are ignored/denied.

This is a choice. The denial and ignorance is a choice.

i'm going to end my discussion with you on this topic here. You are taking this way to personal.

How so? ~scrolling up to re-read my post~ There's nothing personal in it. Only the question that you posted a video which asserts the opposite of what you intend to prove. It's natural and normal for you to back away from the discussion for various reasons. But that doesn't mean I won't be replying to what you post about this.

It would be much better to attain an agreement. And that agreement is very simple. The desire to consider the "void" as a source is a choice which is neither rational, nor based on scientific knowledge. Agreeing to this ends the debate.

 

[NadjjaXXI]

@dybmh I was hoping to ask you a few questions if you’re around at some point. Apologies, I realise this is an old thread. I am highly interested in what you described, not least because it challenges some long held beliefs of mine with regards to Qabalistic ideas. For full disclosure - my understanding is based on Hermetic Qabalism (and a LHP approach at that), which I realise is at odds with your belief system, and so I understand if you are not inclined to answer me.

 

[dybmh]

@dybmh I was hoping to ask you a few questions if you’re around at some point. Apologies, I realise this is an old thread. I am highly interested in what you described, not least because it challenges some long held beliefs of mine with regards to Qabalistic ideas. For full disclosure - my understanding is based on Hermetic Qabalism (and a LHP approach at that), which I realise is at odds with your belief system, and so I understand if you are not inclined to answer me.

Hi NadjjaXXI, It's nice to meet you. Since it's an old thread, I'll send you a private message.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Void, Emptiness, and Infinite or Eternal

all of them are creation of One G-d/Allah, please, right?


Regards
________________

Cherry picking from page-1

I’m with @SalixIncendium here. I’d say that all spiritual “places” are instead [spiritual] states of being.

Are you thinking a void with dimensions or a void without dimensions?

 

[ChristineM]

all of them are creation of One G-d/Allah

Evidence please, right?

 

[paarsurrey]

The Void, Emptiness, and Infinite or Eternal

all of them are creation of One G-d/Allah, please, right?

Evidence please, right?

The Science dimension/aspect of them is an issue to be settled by the persons who are engaged in it as per the Scientific Method , I was not reflecting on it, right, please?
Religious aspects of issues are settled by Religious Method of "claims and reasons from the Word of G-d", please?
Right?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

The Void, Emptiness, and Infinite or Eternal


The Science dimension/aspect of them is an issue to be settled by the persons who are engaged in it as per the Scientific Method , I was not reflecting on it, right, please?
Religious aspects of issues are settled by Religious Method of "claims and reasons from the Word of G-d", please?
Right?

Regards

There is no evidence that gods exist, never mind actually saying or writing anything. What you consider gods word is second or third hand written in books by man.

Of course they may have believed it to be their gods word just as you do, that does not make it factual

 

[blü 2]

I think the error here is the assignment of "place"...that this void/emptiness/abyss has a location in pragmatic reality.

When you are dreaming, where, in the dream, is the glass of water that rests upon your nightstand in this reality?

I'm reminded of Hamlet's words (II.2.240) ─

O God, I could be bounded in a nut shell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.​

Personally, I doubt that anything literally infinite does or can exist in reality.

 

[PureX]

Everything that exists is the evidence that God exists.

I exist ... I am here.
You exist ... you are here.
We both agree that we are here. That there is a 'here' for us to exist in.

Yet neither of us is responsible for our being here, or for here being here. So something else must be, because nothing that makes up 'us' or 'here' is capable of self-generating.

This is not proof, but it is strong logical evidence that some uber-capable entity is responsible for all that's here, being here.

 

[ChristineM]

Everything that exists is the evidence that God exists.

Nope, the most you can say with any degree of certainty is that everything that exists is evidence that the universe exists.

More than that is just guesswork and opinion