What constitutes Cosmic Space?

[Aupmanyav]

Ok, so what is real, is your perception real?

Nothing. No, perception is never real, it is always deceptive, but an analysis may be correct.

How can the perception of yourself which by your definition is not real, be the source of something real, ie. your perception?

Prick your finger and blood oozes out. Nothing has touched nothing. The needle, your finger, the blood that oozes out, the act of pricking, none of that is real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nothing. No, perception is never real, it is always deceptive, but an analysis may be correct.
Prick your finger and blood oozes out. Nothing has touched nothing. The needle, your finger, the blood that oozes out, the act of pricking, none of that is real.

So what is your definition of 'real'?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Answered in my previous post - Nothing.

Well this Nothing behind the scenes begins to appear a lot like a creator God behind the scenes, It determines existence or non-existence, why and when we do not know.

The concept of God is different. It creates, requires prayer, does not allow you to worship other Gods, judges your actions at a certain indeterminate point of time, rewards or punishes you. 'Nothing' does 'nothing' other than make you believe in an unreality - 'maya', 'illusion'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Answered in my previous post - Nothing.

Where is rational experiences when you need her, you and her could have a great discussion.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Answered in my previous post - Nothing.
The concept of God is different. It creates, requires prayer, does not allow you to worship other Gods, judges your actions at a certain indeterminate point of time, rewards or punishes you. 'Nothing' does 'nothing' other than make you live in an unreality.

Well I propose a new religion, we can all give thanks to Nothing for all we have, Nothinghu Akbar!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Where is rational experiences when you need her, you and her could have a great discussion.

I need none other than my wife who gives me the clothes that I should wear and tells me what to eat. Experiences in a world of illusion world are never rational. One needs to analyze them.

 

[rational experiences]

Well this Nothing behind the scenes begins to appear a lot like a creator God behind the scenes, It determines existence or non-existence, why and when we do not know.

Men as human thinkers are liars.

The reason even before they seek an answer they claim they already own the answer and ego will not ascertain they are wrong.

In our heavens, the one and only evil body presence is gases alight burning.

The scientist claims alight and burning is the first law applied to creation becoming a released and separated form as its zero body opens.

In rational human science they quote gas light is voiding in the space vacuum that keeps our heavens cooled as the gases burning are intensely hot.

That is the idea burning flame behind our water oxygen and then hydrogen cold oxygen mass body not burning.

So your ideas are fake. As it is not God as God is Number one mass and the stone owning all Numbers as scientific equating.

Not burning as stone and not alive as stone science said it gave life of spirit back to God and set stone alight. As the liars you always were and still are.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Men as human thinkers are liars.

The reason even before they seek an answer they claim they already own the answer and ego will not ascertain they are wrong.

In our heavens, the one and only evil body presence is gases alight burning.

The scientist claims alight and burning is the first law applied to creation becoming a released and separated form as its zero body opens.

In rational human science they quote gas light is voiding in the space vacuum that keeps our heavens cooled as the gases burning are intensely hot.

That is the idea burning flame behind our water oxygen and then hydrogen cold oxygen mass body not burning.

So your ideas are fake. As it is not God as God is Number one mass and the stone owning all Numbers as scientific equating.

Not burning as stone and not alive as stone science said it gave life of spirit back to God and set stone alight. As the liars you always were and still are.

Thank you rational experiences, I'm not sure what that evil is in our heavens, do you mean the sun?

 

[sealchan]

Depending on whom is doing the describing, there are a number of concepts of a reality about that imply omnipresence. There may be more than these?

Dark Energy
Spirit
Higgs Field
Ether
Quantum Field

Obviously these concepts represent realities that must have common aspect/s shared by the other/s.

So what fills the omnipresence of space?

Consciousness, God and the Universe...these terms I consider to be "whole terms". Whole terms in some way shape or form refer to the set of all things. They would also qualify as being omnipresent I believe.

Perhaps any of the fields of physics might be considered to be omnipresent. Space-time, matter-energy are also qualities that can be applied throughout reality. Reality, too, is a whole term it seems.

The problem I find with whole terms is that they purport to put a metaphorical "box" around all of reality and that may be a problematic thing to do. I predict that science will eventually have a reason to delineate our Universe and its laws as something separate from other possible Universes. Consciousness would seem to encompass everything due its solipsism of we know what we know and there is nothing real that we don't know until we know it. And God seems to also leak in that first cause is no explanation for anything at all.

I do find this interesting, though...to contemplate what are omnipresent qualities of the (whole) universe.

 

[rational experiences]

Thank you rational experiences, I'm not sure what that evil is in our heavens, do you mean the sun?

Our brother said the Sun owned the bow shock cooled gases between the ancient Sun attack and Earths gases.

Earths gases in the heavens far colder and denser by mass than a Sun body only survived by that historic status Immaculate.

Space cooled the attack. Earth continued to burn its gases as they were unnaturally ignited...to function like a Sun and yet be nothing like that Sun.

The light constant existed in the void vacuum only.

Even Einstein knew he was wrong. His life death moment his memory I once was caused to hear and see him in vision. He told me he was sorry and he had been wrong. I always wondered why I got to see his vision, now I understand what he realised like a lot of NDE humans state is the moment of intense self realisation just before you die.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Consciousness, God and the Universe...these terms I consider to be "whole terms". Whole terms in some way shape or form refer to the set of all things. They would also qualify as being omnipresent I believe.

Perhaps any of the fields of physics might be considered to be omnipresent. Space-time, matter-energy are also qualities that can be applied throughout reality. Reality, too, is a whole term it seems.

The problem I find with whole terms is that they purport to put a metaphorical "box" around all of reality and that may be a problematic thing to do. I predict that science will eventually have a reason to delineate our Universe and its laws as something separate from other possible Universes. Consciousness would seem to encompass everything due its solipsism of we know what we know and there is nothing real that we don't know until we know it. And God seems to also leak in that first cause is no explanation for anything at all.

I do find this interesting, though...to contemplate what are omnipresent qualities of the (whole) universe.

So if there is an objective totality, we can only ever know a fraction of it?

And if there is a Universal Consciousness, that would be way beyond our human comprehension? Yet perhaps we already know, and indeed share in, a fraction of that too. And perhaps we can become one with it entirely.

 

[PureX]

Wrong, the word is human, the quantity, the space, existed long before humans existed...

I don't think you understand really particularly well

All I'm asking you is WHAT EXISTS that is not an idea, that you are calling 'space'? And not only can you not answer, but you can't even grasp the question, because you cannot grasp that even the question of exist/not exist is a result of cognitive function, and not of an objective phenomenon.

 

[PureX]

So your perception is real, but that which is perceived is not real?

Our perception of reality is all we have. What ever is beyond and apart from that we cannot perceive. We can IMAGINE it, of course. But what we imagine to exist or not exist beyond what we can actually perceive as existing is just fantasy.

How can the perception of yourself which by your definition is not real, be the source of something real, ie. your perception?

By YOUR definition it's not real. I've already stated that my perceptions really are my perceptions. My perceptions are "real" even as they are inaccurate and incomplete. (As are all of ours.) Our perceptions of ourselves are inaccurate and incomplete, as is our perception of everything. But our perceptions are real, just the same. They really are our perception of 'what is'.

 

[RestlessSoul]

All I'm asking you is WHAT EXISTS that is not an idea, that you are calling 'space'? And not only can you not answer, but you can't even grasp the question, because you cannot grasp that even the question of exist/not exist is a result of cognitive function, and not of an objective phenomenon.

This is Idealism vs Naive Materialism. As schools of thought, they are incompatible, hence the inability for the two of you to communicate.

Perhaps you can find some common ground here (Indirect Realism)...

Direct and indirect realism - Wikipedia

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Our perception of reality is all we have. What ever is beyond and apart from that we cannot perceive. We can IMAGINE it, of course. But what we imagine to exist or not exist beyond what we can actually perceive as existing is just fantasy.
By YOUR definition it's not real. I've already stated that my perceptions really are my perceptions. My perceptions are "real" even as they are inaccurate and incomplete. (As are all of ours.) Our perceptions of ourselves are inaccurate and incomplete, as is our perception of everything. But our perceptions are real, just the same. They really are our perception of 'what is'.

Thank you, I sort of understand where you are coming from, my journey towards true apprehension of reality continues.

 

[Clara Tea]

Depending on whom is doing the describing, there are a number of concepts of a reality about that imply omnipresence. There may be more than these?

Dark Energy
Spirit
Higgs Field
Ether
Quantum Field

Obviously these concepts represent realities that must have common aspect/s shared by the other/s.

So what fills the omnipresence of space?

Dark energy - Wikipedia

Scientists seem stumped to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and have guessed that dark energy is responsible. Presumably, they have found it.

When scientists grasp at straws, and guess answers (hoping that facts will fill in the truth), they are indulging in religion.

AAAS

Even once we have figured out the expansion acceleration, we still have to figure out "spooky action." Which means that changing the spin of one particle changes the spin of an entangled particle no matter how far away it is (instantaneously). But, since nothing can travel across the metric of space faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, how can spooky action work?

Theists would like to glom onto the unknowns of physics and give theist ideas life. But, without further study, we really can't glean many answers.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Dark energy - Wikipedia

Scientists seem stumped to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and have guessed that dark energy is responsible. Presumably, they have found it.

When scientists grasp at straws, and guess answers (hoping that facts will fill in the truth), they are indulging in religion.

AAAS

Even once we have figured out the expansion acceleration, we still have to figure out "spooky action." Which means that changing the spin of one particle changes the spin of an entangled particle no matter how far away it is (instantaneously). But, since nothing can travel across the metric of space faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, how can spooky action work?

Theists would like to glom onto the unknowns of physics and give theist ideas life. But, without further study, we really can't glean many answers.

“Theists” - whatever they are - don’t need to glom onto the uncertainty of physicists, to give life to the conviction that the material plane of existence is not the only one.
Those who have elevated science to the status of a religion, may be a little disturbed to have their certainties challenged, but scientists needn't be..

However, both science and religion will continue; they are not and never have been, incompatible. Meanwhile, those of us who have an interest in both, but no claim to comprehensive knowledge of either, may simply remark that Bill Shakespeare had it right when he wrote the words, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in thy philosophy.”

 

[ChristineM]

All I'm asking you is WHAT EXISTS that is not an idea, that you are calling 'space'? And not only can you not answer, but you can't even grasp the question, because you cannot grasp that even the question of exist/not exist is a result of cognitive function, and not of an objective phenomenon.

Sheesh. Condescending arsehole.

Space exists, is defined, get over yourself

 

[sealchan]

So if there is an objective totality, we can only ever know a fraction of it?

And if there is a Universal Consciousness, that would be way beyond our human comprehension? Yet perhaps we already know, and indeed share in, a fraction of that too. And perhaps we can become one with it entirely.

Critically an observer is a part of the reality of the observed. That means that we participate in the powers and restrictions of that reality.

I am becoming more and more of the mind that as science explores the nature of the Universe, it is found, at every fundamental level, to be of the nature of a complex, adaptive system. In such a system the parts are co-created out of linear and often non-linear cycles of behavior. These cycles of behavior form up into the parts or elements of new systems. Systems at one layer form out of the behavior of lower level systems in constant interaction with other overlapping systems. Although causal, the complexity of such systems often brings with them sensitivity to initial conditions. This makes precise predictions about the past and future mathematically limited. Systems are fundamentally stable configurations that are, nonetheless, responsive to their environments. They have evolved through a particular subjective history into their present form. In this view evolution is a property of all physical systems. This implies that within the development of any system there are critical points in that development where arbitrary facts determine stable truths for the system going forward. ( Perhaps I should label this for easy reference in my thinking later as the "Subjectivity Principle" of Natural, Evolving Systems". Sounds like a new thread title to me.)

As science gets better at recognizing the systemic character of the Universe, I believe that it will become a convention at some point to begin to identify certain physical behaviors as likely being a very small subset of possible behaviors caused by some unknown historic occurrence which caused what might have been a wide ranging potential to "collapse" into a particular "law" of physics. You see this sort of thinking in modern cosmology as scientists attempt to understand how various features of our universe came to be, especially those arbitrary facts and constants which are stable truths now but must have been "set" at some point in the "early" history of the formation of the universe. As a result, our local Universe may begin to take shape as such and a sort of underlying medium of quantum or whatnot observable behaviors may be seen as of a domain beyond what we somewhat arbitrarily label as Our Universe.

Since we are of this universe, eventually our local embeddedness into the systems we are composed of will limit our ability to manipulate and/or explore the greater reality of the environment in which we thrive. We can see the brakes explicitly now in the form of some non-rational physical laws and principles like the Uncertainty Principle and Particle-Wave Duality. Just as the brain forms its primary perceptions of reality by reproducing complimentary oppositional dualites in our brain-mind (light-dark, awake-asleep), we are beginning to see the Universe as a whole showing us these sorts of dualities as limits to our knowledge and experience.

 

[sealchan]

So if there is an objective totality, we can only ever know a fraction of it?

And if there is a Universal Consciousness, that would be way beyond our human comprehension? Yet perhaps we already know, and indeed share in, a fraction of that too. And perhaps we can become one with it entirely.

In a deep way, I think that all whole terms are really all trying to express what is perceived to be just one thing: the set of all things. Consciousness, God, Universe are really synonyms with what might be considered with deeply different connotations. Consciousness and God reflect the duality of I and Thou or Us and Them or Self and Other or Subject and Object. Although Consciousness and God seem to be two very different things, they are really not. This is attested to through countless visions and experiences of a spiritual or mystical nature. Since these are abstract ideas not pointing to demonstrable physical properties that can be bottled or boxed up, spiritual/mystical perspectives have as much or even more validity when speaking of such things than science can at the present time.

Similarly Consciousness and God as Knowers is in a complimentary opposite relationship to the Universe or Creation as known. But taking a basic systemic view we immediately know that, of course, we human beings who "have consciousness" and "know God" are also just "dust" or the stuff of the unknowing Universe.

Every such duality of complimentary opposites reveals two things:

• The relationship of opposites presents a mystery even as it saturates the character of what we know as knowers
• Trying to resolve complimentary opposites into a simpler rational formulation always yields further complexity of knowledge in the face of the irrationality of the duality

The dualities we observe in the universe have the recognizable imprint of the work of the brain. The nervous system is in so many ways a system for responding to sensory input by virtue of complimentary opposition. In neurons we have polarization and depolarization as well as excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters. In neural connections we see positive and negative feedback mechanisms. The control of muscles through nerves is always performed by a graded coordination of opposing stimulation of the muscle to contract and extend simultaneously. Color perception shows its complimentary oppositional character as we contemplate the relationships of the primary colors with each other.

Certainly given this context we indeed share in that which we know in ways which we have discovered and will continue to discover. It is the experience of so-called self-similarity in systems which shows that we have a lot in common with various aspects of the universe at various scales.

We are already at one with the universe. We are embedded in it inextricably. There is no heaven to escape to, but, perhaps, there is if we understand that the Universe is NOT a box as much as it is a flower growing in a dark field and as a small insect on that flower we may just reach out in some way and make contact with that field even from where we stand in our utter smallness.