the universe doesnt have to be infinite

[Pincho Paxton]

The easiest way to make the universe is infinite particles bumping together. They have to make every object in the universe, because they are infinite, and they are bumping together.

direct perception 'sees' finite,
every thing arises, ceases, endures.
causes/conditions.
relationship, relatedness, relativity.
dependent arising.
this ceases, that ceases.
nothing is permanent and because all things are conditional, all is empty of self-nature.

infinite particle

this is your 'simple substance' or monad or build of the cosmos.

that which can't be broken down in to constituent elements.

you are giving it permanency, self-nature, absolute identity.
effectively, you are naming 'infinite particle' God.
correct?

I am naming the infinite particles the creator of all things by accident. I think that God takes away the accident part.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

How can something without intention make an accident?

Dan impersonation.

[Dennis Mahar]

With a nod to 'ceaseless change'
perhaps,
wandering or restless or 'no fixed address'.

a gestalt could generate peace in the face of ceaseless activity.

[Pincho Paxton]

With a nod to 'ceaseless change'
perhaps,
wandering or restless or 'no fixed address'.

a gestalt could generate peace in the face of ceaseless activity.

Is that some sort of Philosophy speak. A bit like leet speak.

d00d: Replaces "dude" and its variety of uses.
joo and u: Used instead of "you." Also written as "j00" or "_|00."
kewl: A derivation of "cool."
m4d sk1llz or mad skills: Refers to one's own talent. "m4d" itself is often used for emphasis.
n00b, noob, newbie, or newb: Combinations synonymous with new user. Some leetspeakers view "n00b" as an insult and "newbie" as an affectionate term for new users.
ph: Often transposed with "f." For example, leetspeakers might use the spelling "phear" for "fear" ("ph34r my l33t skillz") or spell "phonetic" as "f0||371(." Illegal Internet activities, such as phishing and pharming, are often named using this convention.
pr0n: An anagram of "porn," short for pornography.
pwn: A typo-deliberate version of "own," a slang term often used to express superiority over others, for example, "//3 pw||3d _|00" (we own you).
roxx0rs: Used in place of "rocks," typically to describe something impressive.
sploitz (short for "exploits"): Vulnerabilities in computer software used by hackers.
warez or w4r3z: Illegally copied software available for download.
w00t: A celebratory cheer similar to "yay" or "woo-hoo!"

Whatever it is, I'm having a language problem with it.

[Wesson]

I woke up, extra-early for this one, Dan.

"""""""""

I was in review of what might happen: So, I created a Universe just like Pincho Paxton said using a Super/Virus computer.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pincho,

A theory such as all things are created by infinite particles bumping together.
has to generate a personally transformative experience.

what happened?

In the context of how, when where, what, why,

you've got a how

how it exists,
the reason for ceaseless activity is the action of infinite particles bumping together which cannot hold any surprises any more.
peace in the face of ceaseless activity looks like the possibility.
this ceaseless activity rendered ultimately meaningless,
like a bee in a bottle.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho,

A theory such as all things are created by infinite particles bumping together.
has to generate a personally transformative experience.

what happened?

In the context of how, when where, what, why,

you've got a how

how it exists,
the reason for ceaseless activity is the action of infinite particles bumping together which cannot hold any surprises any more.
peace in the face of ceaseless activity looks like the possibility.
this ceaseless activity rendered ultimately meaningless,
like a bee in a bottle.

You only need how. If somebody pours a pot of boiling water on ants do they ask why they existed just to be destroyed? We are nothing.. just a fleeting memory. The only thing that matters is how.

[Dennis Mahar]

You only need how. If somebody pours a pot of boiling water on ants do they ask why they existed just to be destroyed?

don't know about ants.

humans plead for who, when, where, what, why.

in the category who,

you've got a who:
infinite particle.

agree?

a how and a who?

there's a possible what as well,
or a context for 'what's so'
'bumping together'.

agree?

. just a fleeting memory

this sentence suggests a time and place.

a where and when.

[Pincho Paxton]

You only need how. If somebody pours a pot of boiling water on ants do they ask why they existed just to be destroyed?

don't know about ants.

humans plead for who, when, where, what, why.

in the category who,

you've got a who:
infinite particle.

agree?

a how and a who?

there's a possible what as well,
or a context for 'what's so'
'bumping together'.

agree?

. just a fleeting memory

this sentence suggests a time and place.

a where and when.

It's not complicated, just infinite particles bumping together. I think that its simple, and the Universe is simple.

humans plead for who, when, where, what, why.

Do they? They ask 5 questions?

This is my question...

"Why do people ask stupid questions?"

The answer is particles just bump together... The End... tralla! ... Lion Roars.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

My god Pincho, how is that an answer? You don't even know what a particle is, how can't you see that? You are simply naming the things you see saying "big things are made of smaller things", great work!
Does that actually say anything about the things? No, it just says they are made of other things. See what I mean?

[Dennis Mahar]

I can only go on your statements Pincho and the implications.

you've provided a who,
a how,
implicated a where and a when,
given a 'what's so' indicating a what or 'being'.

'infinite particles bumping' also seems to suggest a why:

infinite process or becoming.

It's OK for lion to roar,
It's OK to figure out what it roars.

So,
thanks for a who, when, where, how, what and why.

[Wesson]

Pincho Glair (

The sub/atomics.

Space/Outer Space............z Ronound Sequence(Es)!'

I Can Tally All Day/About This This Outer Space Stuff.




OH! beware/indeed werewolves exist! The Zimmerman/Pop Sequence.

[Wesson]

Pincho Glair (

The sub/atomics.

Space/Outer Space............z Ronound Sequence(Es)!'

I Can Tally All Day/About This This Outer Space Stuff.




OH! beware/indeed werewolves exist! The Zimmerman/Pop Sequence.

[Wesson]

oo

[Pincho Paxton]

My god Pincho, how is that an answer? You don't even know what a particle is, how can't you see that? You are simply naming the things you see saying "big things are made of smaller things", great work!
Does that actually say anything about the things? No, it just says they are made of other things. See what I mean?

You are wrong.. 1 + -1 = 0 which says that zero is made from all things. Zero is made from everything. So when the Universe is infinite it is all flat, and you can pull everything out of it like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. You are only moving the particles around. So the particles are 1 + -1.

[Dennis Mahar]

1 + -1 = 0

are you trying to make an account for 'objects of consciousness'?

1+ accounts for the object of consciousness.
In other words, a thing (1), as it appears to assert itself in the mind, is 1+, our object of consciousness.

1-
an object is what it is not.

you are saying an object is both what it is and what it is not.
that 1-1 accounts for the object.
an object being both what it is and what it is not accounts for zero.
If that were the case no object would be found in experience at all, consciousness would have shut down.

[Pincho Paxton]

1 + -1 = 0

are you trying to make an account for 'objects of consciousness'?

1+ accounts for the object of consciousness.
In other words, a thing (1), as it appears to assert itself in the mind, is 1+, our object of consciousness.

1-
an object is what it is not.

you are saying an object is both what it is and what it is not.
that 1-1 accounts for the object.
an object being both what it is and what it is not accounts for zero.
If that were the case no object would be found in experience at all, consciousness would have shut down.

Computers work on binary, 10101110
Brains work on holes and fillers... filler,hole,filler,hole,filler,filler,filler,hole

So a hole is -1 and a filler is 1, and consciousness is both combined.

[Dennis Mahar]

You are wrong.. 1 + -1 = 0 which says that zero is made from all things. Zero is made from everything

should that read:

all things are made from zero.
everything is made from zero.

[Pincho Paxton]

You are wrong.. 1 + -1 = 0 which says that zero is made from all things. Zero is made from everything

should that read:

all things are made from zero.
everything is made from zero.

Sort of. The dictionary is wrong. Zero is the WHOLE, not a Hole. 1 + -1 = The whole.

If you put two equal forces together they cancel each other out. But the two forces are the whole force combined. If you say that the Universe is made from zero, then that means that all forces are already in the Universe.

Like in water when two waves clash in opposite directions they become flat water. It's strange but the flat water still contains all of the energy of the two colliding waves. So you can think of space as forces colliding, and so everything looks quiet. When in fact everything is building up to create a lot of stuff.

It's called destructive interference when waves collide, but it works with all objects that collide with the opposite forces...
http://physics.tutorvista.com/waves/des ... rence.html

[Dennis Mahar]

That's better.
we've got a whole and parts distinction which are ultimately indistinguishable.

Totality (A) = all the parts (A)

A=A

[Pincho Paxton]

That's better.
we've got a whole and parts distinction which are ultimately indistinguishable.

Totality (A) = all the parts (A)

A=A

Well A = A doesn't say a lot. I don't think it is even allowed.

[Dan Rowden]

Actually, for persons with some subtlety of mind and logic, A=A says a great deal. To wit:


A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer":

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things).

- - - - -

All things are caused, or, A=A as the basis of causality where "cause" is defined as "that which is necessary for something to exist":

Under this definition of "cause" it becomes immediately apparent that all things are caused - since any given thing requires what it is not for its existence ( its "being" is necessitated by relation to other things): those other things are necessary to its existence and are therefore causal to it. Any thing is caused by "not that thing". In many respects this is a re-stating of the above and conveys the same essential meaning. In Buddhism this is known as co-dependent origination - that things gives rise to each other due to the necessity of their relation.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of logic:

This seems totally obvious to me as A=A is the basis of consciousness itself. Consciousness requires content, things, differentiation, and A=A represents the basis of that. Without the relation between "thing" and "not-thing" there can be no things to be aware of, no content, no existence and therefore no consciousness. Since A=A symbolises the basis of consciousness it must necessarily also be the basis of all forms of thought and logic is a form of thought; it is a movement of mind necessarily containing differentiated content (i.e. "things"). A=A is foundational to this and therefore the basis of logic.

- - - - -

A=A as the basis of the path to enlightenment and non attachment:

Since any given thing's existence is necessitated by its relation to that which it is not, no thing can be said to possess inherent existence (existence independent of other things/causes). This applies to us as well and particularly to the concept of an inherently existent self (ego) which stands as the prevailing force in our consciousness and which leads to all of our emotional attachments and our [irrational] concepts of Reality. Since no thing exists inherently, neither does the ego.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

That might be one of the main things needed to help describe/explain enlightenment and non-attachment but it is definitely not the basis of the path there.

It is not necessary to know of this explanation or understanding in anyway, to have ever heard of it or to have participated in any study/grasping of it to reach enlightenment.
(Although you might just give the argument that every person is already "using" this by default, which then proves it isn't actually related to the term "a=a" seeing as not every person has even thought about the particular term)

It is a philosophical explanation related to dependent origination, a=a probably won't do any good actually enlightening anybody on it's own, but I do understand why such explanations are vital.

Non-attachment is primarily experience based, academics/communication of enlightenment is a result of those experiences that only comes after having understood through experience. (Unless somehow it was academically explained before it was actually experienced.)

This is why I think it silly to try and share enlightenment through reference to philosophical concepts. One should try to communicate it through "pointing" to common experiences or giving hints as to what to do and "where to go" with consciousness, such as Buddha's very clear "meditate".

Dw I know I'm talking about nothing, but we all are, is there anything to talk about that isn't nothing?

[Pincho Paxton]

Well A =A to me means that something is made from itself. But even zero is made from two things 1 + -1 = 0. So according to that you can't use A = A.

You can use A + -A = B

Which is Cause and effect, and includes Newton's 3rd law, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

You can't use

A = A

because that would mean that...

0 = 0

and then the Universe would not exist.

If I write 2 = 2 then there are a few Cause and effects in the text.

(2 space) equals (space 2)

and as you can see, they have reversed, but you are ignoring the reversal. and at the very least they have moved apart by 5 font sizes.

Or an apple equals another apple. There are billions of differences between two apples.

[Dennis Mahar]

A=A or the law of identity is the BASIS upon which reasoning proceeds.

Consciousness as an activity identifies, differentiates, reacts.

Reasoning is identifying the object and differentiating it.

To establish the true identity of the object appearing.

You will find the object lacks inherent existence.

Looking deeply into a flower we see that the flower is made of non-flower elements. We can describe the flower as being full of everything. There is nothing that is not present in the flower. We see sunshine, we see the rain, we see clouds, we see the earth, and we also see time and space in the flower. A flower, like everything else, is made entirely of non-flower elements. The whole cosmos has come together in order to help the flower manifest itself. The flower is full of everything except one thing: a separate self or a separate identity.

The flower cannot be by itself alone. The flower has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud and everything in the cosmos. If we understand being in terms of inter-being, then we are much closer to the truth. Inter-being is not being and it is not non-being. Inter-being means at the same time being empty of a separate identity; empty of a separate self.