Objective reality or not?

[Imadrongo]

This is my current understanding of this...

Objective reality:
- Existence != appearance.
- Consciousness created by the "real version" of what we perceive to be a our brain.
- Other human beings within my construction of consciousness who appear to be conscious themselves could actually be.
- Death of what I perceive as my brain is likely going to be the end of my consciousness.

No objective reality:
- Existence == appearance.
- My brain doesn't exist before I'm conscious and therefore can't create my consciousness.
- Everything is simply an existence within my construct and there is no reason to believe that others share it or even have consciousness themselves.
- To accept this position I am basically a solipsist.

I guess what I'm really asking is if the "hidden void" is an "ultimate reality" that, when we perceive it with our "real" brains (not necessarily what we see as our brains though likely similar or the same) we see the world as we know it. Otherwise what is the point to enlightenment and trying to help others, who don't actually exist, reach it? It is unclear to me from reading Chapter 6 of David Quinn's book which he believes.

For example... (how) do we know the "hidden void" exists? Is our perception of it equal to the world as we know it, or does it really have no existence beyond an abstract concept in our consciousness? Either way it is unknowable.

[Imadrongo]

I'm thinking that what you guys mean is that an objective reality (as in the "hidden void") does most likely "exist" (cannot be validated) though the term "exist" is wholly misused/meaningless in this application (outside our construction). But conceptually speaking....

[Cory Duchesne]

(how) do we know the "hidden void" exists?

The etymological meaning of 'exist' is: to emerge, to appear.

The hidden void doesn't emerge or appear, so it doesn't exist.

So I think your question is: "How do we know the 'hidden void' is causing our perceptions of appearances and emergences?

My question to you is, "Why or how could it be otherwise?"

[Imadrongo]

I believe I have figured this out.

The world we see is contingent upon our consciousness and thus not real. Ultimate Reality is not contingent and is real... whatever it is.

[Imadrongo]

I have thought... existence requires an observer. However, how do we know the observer exists? Does the observer exist if we don't observe it? No. Thus we have arrived at the "nothing exists" phase.

This seems somewhat at odds with my consciousness and the reality I created, both which seem to exist.

Still we have the "hidden void":

there are only two things that we can know for sure about the "hidden void" - namely, (a) that it does not have any form and is therefore wholly unlike anything we can ever experience, and (b) that it possesses the capacity to generate consciousness and existence. Nothing else can ever be known about it.

Any conclusion that we care to reach concerning what lies beyond the construction will be nothing more than a tentative inference, one that is created within the construction itself.

Now David thinks that...

Since it is essentially an unsolvable problem, the only rational course of action is treat it as though it were any other empirical issue - namely, treat the evidence supporting the existence of other people’s consciousness at face value and make the provisional assumption that they are indeed conscious.

In this same manner wouldn't we tentatively accept that the hidden void is some sort of objective reality? In the same way that other humans appear to have consciousness, the brain appears to create it, and then our perception of it and brain appears to make create the world as we know it, even if it is merely a 'radar version' of what is out there and formless.

[Imadrongo]

The etymological meaning of 'exist' is: to emerge, to appear.

The hidden void doesn't emerge or appear, so it doesn't exist.

So I think your question is: "How do we know the 'hidden void' is causing our perceptions of appearances and emergences?

My question to you is, "Why or how could it be otherwise?"

Thanks for your response.

I keep getting caught up in whether it exists or not. If it exists (outside my consciousness, as opposed to a model), it is objective and objective reality exists. If it doesn't exist, how can it cause my perceptions? It isn't logical to say that something that doesn't exist causes something that exists.

Doesn't existence have to precede consciousness for consciousness to exist?

[Cory Duchesne]

The etymological meaning of 'exist' is: to emerge, to appear.

The hidden void doesn't emerge or appear, so it doesn't exist.

So I think your question is: "How do we know the 'hidden void' is causing our perceptions of appearances and emergences?

My question to you is, "Why or how could it be otherwise?"

Thanks for your response.

I keep getting caught up in whether it exists or not. If it exists (outside my consciousness, as opposed to a model), it is objective and objective reality exists. If it doesn't exist, how can it cause my perceptions?

It depends on what you mean when you say 'it doesn't exist'.

When I say it doesn't exist, I'm merely saying that it is not capable of appearing, or emerging. I'm not saying that it is 'nothing'. On the contrary, it is somehow responsible for our sense of existing. Like David said, "it's wholly unlike anything we can ever experience"

It isn't logical to say that something that doesn't exist causes something that exists.

You say that as if you know what it means for it to not exist! Are you believing that it is literally nothing? It is not simply nothing. The problem is that it is not capable of appearing or emerging.

An interesting way to look at it, and probably the most realistic, is to think of this moment, and all things and events as spontaneously existing, without cause or time. There is no creation. Really, cause and effect and time are illusions, the totality of things is just one whole undivided continuum, the totality is an unfathomable spontaneity without boundary, without beginning or end, without form.

Consider also how we are always limited to sensing only one aspect of any one thing we examine, whether that thing is a rock, water, a car, etc. Really, what's implied is that we don't actually perceive anything as it actually is, we're just perceiving aspects of something we can't know. We are only perceiving aspects of what is essentially an undivided continuum without beginning or end. For instance, with your naked eye, water may appear singular; 'a thing' that is homogeneous and fluid. With a different instrument of observation, water may appear more plural - a set of things, a compound of differing molecules. I wonder what water truly looks like, as opposed to merely the aspects of it that I am limited to sensing? Logic indicates that all things are ultimately each other. A tree for instance is sunlight, water, minerals, gases, organisms, cells, proteins, etc. And what comprise those things? Where do things begin and end? It really is quite arbitrary. The appearance of reality is largely the creation of the instrument perceiving, and not so much the result of some independently existing objective reality outside of the perceiver, who tends to assent to this appearance of objective reality, as a factual actuality, when really, according to logic, it is not.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I've tried to find an exact definition for what it means for something to be objective or subjective, but I can't seem to ever be able to put my finger on one. The line is blurry between them. Like how many grains of rice can you remove before you no longer have a heap? Blurry. We all know how to use the terms though, and most folks would say that most the truths of science are more-or-less objective. People who do maintenance on planes don't treat the proper way to do it as subjective. That would, of course, be madness. On the flip-side we'd probably all say that aesthetics (ethics and whatnot) are subjective.

It seems that we make a mistake by approaching the objective/subjective dichotomy as if it were an ontological issue. Everything may be objective or subjective in a manner of speaking, but to hold to either view would be seemingly self-defeating. If we've never experienced an objective thing, then how should we know what it is? Same goes for the reverse. Of course, I've never seen a unicorn, and I would say that I know what one is, but that case seems somehow different. A unicorn is made up of different parts of things that I have experienced. If everything were subjective (for example) then it seems that our foundation for understanding what it is for something to be objective is formed from subjective simples. I don't know that that makes sense.

A question now crops up over whether or not we can make sense of the term 'subjective' if we can't make sense of the term 'objective' (or vice-versa). It seems that both terms are the sort that can only really be understood in relation to each other. To say that everything is subjective when we don't know what it would mean for everything to be objective would seem silly. What would we be saying? We could perhaps say that anyone who would make such a claim is saying nothing. Anytime we might want to say that "everything is x" we should check ourselves. If we mean everything conceivable (as opposed to everything that exists), then we should imagine that we wouldn't be able to imagine otherwise. To say that everything in all possible worlds is a certain way is to say that we can't imagine it being otherwise (any dispute over such a thing is semantic in nature).

To prove that I'm not off on a tangent of my own, I'll address the 'hidden void' notion. What we need to ask ourselves is if we can fathom what it would mean for there to be one and not be one. Without altering the fundamental concept of what this 'hidden void' is when imagining it, can we imagine both it being the case and not being the case? If it is necessarily the case (or not the case) in all possible worlds, then there is nothing to discuss about it. It's all semantics from there on out.

If I understand correctly the 'hidden void' is like Kantian 'noumena'. It exists outside and independently of conscious experience of it. I can fathom what it would mean for noumena to exist or not exist, but when I speak of such noumena, I am pretending to not reference what I am imagining. That should be clear from the fact that anything I imagine will be conscious experience by necessity. This is a very queer and perplexing sort of problem, and I am very tempted to write it off as something of a semantic trick. Perhaps we don't know what we're saying. How can we talk of something that we can't possible imagine?

We might be tempted to say that we simply point at the idea. If someone else has conscious experience then certainly there is more then my conscious experience. That seems very clear. Nevertheless, how is it that we can speak of the conscious experience of someone else at all? How is it that we learned to use the term correctly? I learned what a 'ball' is by mirroring others usage of the term. We might want to say that that isn't how it works, and that we learn what a ball is by having someone say 'ball' while pointing at one. How, then, would I know that the term 'ball' isn't supposed to refer to the color, or texture, or more general or specific thing then it does?

Do I know what the conscious experience of someone else is, or do I just understand how to properly use such words? It would seem clear to me that no distinction can be made between such things. Knowing how to properly use such words is understanding what conscious experience is, as much understanding how to use the word 'unicorn' is to understand what a unicorn is. Try to imagine that you knew exactly how to use the word 'apple', but didn't know what an 'apple' was. The idea is nonsense. There is no way you could ever learn that you didn't really know what an 'apple' was, as there would be nobody to correct you, as you wouldn't be using the term incorrectly.

It would seem that we can only discuss how we should use the term 'hidden void'. There is nothing else to say.

[Imadrongo]

It depends on what you mean when you say 'it doesn't exist'.

When I say it doesn't exist, I'm merely saying that it is not capable of appearing, or emerging. I'm not saying that it is 'nothing'. On the contrary, it is somehow responsible for our sense of existing. Like David said, "it's wholly unlike anything we can ever experience"

I tend to think of "exist" as "to be" rather than needing to emerge or appear. I can understand the confusion here. It seems that we know the "hidden void" is -something- and thus I don't like to say it doesn't exist. It is something that is necessary for my own consciousness to exist. Regardless I'm glad to clear this up.

The appearance of reality is largely the creation of the instrument perceiving, and not so much the result of some independently existing objective reality outside of the perceiver, who tends to assent to this appearance of objective reality, as a factual actuality, when really, according to logic, it is not.

I suppose you meant "it is not necessarily".

[Imadrongo]

It would seem that we can only discuss how we should use the term 'hidden void'. There is nothing else to say.

You are right. Talking about "objective" whatever on this level is really just creating conceptual models. I think they are useful for understanding, we just have to recognize that in the end they are not real and are limited. I don't like the idea of rejecting all models right off the bat as being unreal though, as there is something to be learned from them.

[Cory Duchesne]

ExpectantlyIronic,

I've tried to find an exact definition for what it means for something to be objective or subjective, but I can't seem to ever be able to put my finger on one. The line is blurry between them. Like how many grains of rice can you remove before you no longer have a heap? Blurry. We all know how to use the terms though, and most folks would say that most the truths of science are more-or-less objective. People who do maintenance on planes don't treat the proper way to do it as subjective. That would, of course, be madness. On the flip-side we'd probably all say that aesthetics (ethics and whatnot) are subjective. It seems that we make a mistake by approaching the objective/subjective dichotomy as if it were an ontological issue.

Perhaps approaching it as an ontological issue is an adequate response to all of those people (with all of that time, brain power and money) who are approaching the question of 'how existence is' - scientifically via physics, rather than philosophically. If I'm not mistaken, there are superstring theorists who hope to find a theory where everything is accounted for via a model of objective reality. So maybe we have to ask ourselves - 1) are we wasting our efforts on goals that are based on deluded assumptions about the nature of reality? and 2) What should the priorities of scientists and philosophers be?

Everything may be objective or subjective in a manner of speaking, but to hold to either view would be seemingly self-defeating.
If we've never experienced an objective thing, then how should we know what it is?

That's just like asking, if we've never experienced magic, then how do we know what a magic trick is? IOW, we've all experienced a slick card trick - as a child we might be inclined to believe it was magic. We experienced what seemed like magic, but later you were able to understand why it was a magic trick. So when it comes to objective reality, we can talk about it in the same way that we can regard a magic trick as literal magic, but then later regard it as a trick - an illusion.

Same goes for the reverse. Of course, I've never seen a unicorn, and I would say that I know what one is, but that case seems somehow different.

Different than what?

A unicorn is made up of different parts of things that I have experienced.

Are there any things you can think of that are not made up of different parts of things that you have experienced?

If everything were subjective then it seems that our foundation for understanding what it is for something to be objective is formed from subjective simples. A question now crops up over whether or not we can make sense of the term 'subjective' if we can't make sense of the term 'objective' (or vice-versa). It seems that both terms are the sort that can only really be understood in relation to each other.
To say that everything is subjective when we don't know what it would mean for everything to be objective would seem silly.

I don't think anyone here is denying that there are objective truths, nor is anyone denying that there is a significant difference between the subjective evaluations of a thing (judging it as bad or good) versus the mere appearance or detectability of the phenomenon in question. So I'm not saying there is not this useful distinction to be made between subjective and objective. The falsehood starts when a person 'literally' believes that the things we perceive actually exist as we perceive them outside of our minds, and then proceeds to waste resources trying to understand the how's and why's of existence via science/physics, scientific modeling, etc.

Anytime we might want to say that "everything is x" we should check ourselves.

So you think there is something wrong with me saying that everything is caused?

If we mean everything conceivable (as opposed to everything that exists), then we should imagine that we wouldn't be able to imagine otherwise. To say that everything in all possible worlds is a certain way is to say that we can't imagine it being otherwise (any dispute over such a thing is semantic in nature).

Do you honestly think an appearance is possible without that appearance being differentiated in contrast to something else?

For instance, could a white dot possibly appear if there was only the color white and nothing else? How could you discern the dot if it did not contrast with a different shade?

In all possible worlds, there are certain things that are a certain way. This we can be certain about.

If I understand correctly the 'hidden void' is like Kantian 'noumena'. It exists outside and independently of conscious experience of it.

No, I assure you, you've got it wrong. It is not a separate thing with a location separate from another thing. You are definitely on the wrong track here.

How can we talk of something that we can't possible imagine?

Infinity cannot be literally imagined, but it can be apprehended. It's implications are clear, but our minds can't literally encompass infinite space and time.

We might be tempted to say that we simply point at the idea.

The idea should point - not be pointed to.

If someone else has conscious experience then certainly there is more then my conscious experience. That seems very clear. Nevertheless, how is it that we can speak of the conscious experience of someone else at all? How is it that we learned to use the term correctly?

What do you mean correctly? Correctly according to what?

I learned what a 'ball' is by mirroring others usage of the term.

What about learning about a ball by experiencing the ball for yourself and then learning the word 'ball' from others who have also experienced it?

We might want to say that that isn't how it works, and that we learn what a ball is by having someone say 'ball' while pointing at one.

Yes, not to mention our own experiencing of that ball that they are pointing to.

How, then, would I know that the term 'ball' isn't supposed to refer to the color, or texture, or more general or specific thing then it does?

Who knows, at first a child might get confused in that manner, but it all gets sorted out. If you have a red t-shirt and a red ball, and the two objects are consistently given different names, then the message gets across. Especially when the same adjective 'red' gets attached to both the different names respectively. So we have two different words for two different objects, but the same words red gets placed before the two different words 'ball' and 'shirt'. Besides, there are plenty of effective lessons and exercises for children, to help them learn to differentiate colors from objects.

Do I know what the conscious experience of someone else is?

No.

or do I just understand how to properly use such words?

You just know how to use the same words that other people use for the things that they, like you, appear to be able detect.

It would seem clear to me that no distinction can be made between such things. Knowing how to properly use such words is understanding what conscious experience is

I'm not really sure what you mean by understanding. Your personal conscious experience is an appearance, not an explanation. You know how it appears. It appears that others are seeing the same things you are. How does it appear to them? You can't know. You can guess that it is similar, especially regarding something like 'brightness'.......but if it's colors we're talking about, what you see as red and what I see as red might not be similar at all.

Knowing how to properly use such words is understanding what conscious experience is as much understanding how to use the word 'unicorn' is to understand what a unicorn is.

There's a significant difference between the word unicorn and your sensory experience of an image of a unicorn.

Try to imagine that you knew exactly how to use the word 'apple', but didn't know what an 'apple' was. The idea is nonsense.

Your point, I'm guessing, is that the phrase 'hidden void' is a word that is nonsense? I think the difference here is that the word hidden void does have a meaning. That it is the father of consciousness/phenomena. The word has a meaning and relationship to phenomena, functioning to account for it on some level.

There is no way you could ever learn that you didn't really know what an 'apple' was, as there would be nobody to correct you, as you wouldn't be using the term incorrectly.

To be more accurate, there is no reason for a normal human being to use a word for no reason.

It would seem that we can only discuss how we should use the term 'hidden void'.

So you haven't read the latest threads discussing it? I've authored both of them. Check them out if you have time, or maybe you already have and may later ask questions.

[Imadrongo]

So an interesting question...

Couldn't objective reality be exactly how we see it? (as in... there "is" no more, not there "appears" no more) This would only make sense if what we perceived could explain our perception and consciousness. In this case materialism and idealism would amount to the same.

[Cory Duchesne]

So an interesting question...

Couldn't objective reality be exactly how we see it?

What we see is only an aspect of 'so called' objective reality, and not an explanation for it

This would only make sense if what we perceived could explain our perception and consciousness.

Are you trying to say that you think it can?

In this case materialism and idealism would amount to the same.

I don't understand what you are trying to say there.

[Imadrongo]

So an interesting question...

Couldn't objective reality be exactly how we see it?

What we see is only an aspect of 'so called' objective reality, and not an explanation for it

Yes I realize that what we see is an aspect of objective reality. Is it not possible that it is the only aspect? Ie, there is no other aspect that lacks form.

This would only make sense if what we perceived could explain our perception and consciousness.

Are you trying to say that you think it can?

I think it does a pretty good job.


What do you think of this? My attempt to model it. =\ Am I missing anything? If you remove "hidden void" from this picture you have materialist world view.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I agree with the left hand side of your diagram, but UR is not exactly equal to the hidden void. The hidden void could best be represented as the box itself. The hidden void is another dimension onto which all else is superimposed. Void means nothingness, and UR is not nothing. The hidden void is hidden because it is hidden by something, and that something is everything that is not the hidden void. The void does not contain anything, which is why it must be in a different dimension from the reality that is able to be perceived directly. If it even occupied the same space/time continuum as we conventionally understand it, it could no longer be called a void. The hidden void can only be inferred.

Furthermore, the world you see should be depicted between UR and your consciousness (and I am bending "see" to actually mean "perceive") and the line drawn to your consciousness. At that, I'd make that a dotted line.

if we've never experienced magic, then how do we know what a magic trick is? IOW, we've all experienced a slick card trick

Cory, what does IOW mean?

[Cory Duchesne]

In other words

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Cory,

The falsehood starts when a person 'literally' believes that the things we perceive actually exist as we perceive them outside of our minds, and then proceeds to waste resources trying to understand the how's and why's of existence via science/physics, scientific modeling, etc.

I think what you mean to suggest then is that naive realism is wrong. Of course. It can't ever be thought of in a way that it could possibly make sense. Also, there are a lot of scientists who aren't naive realists. The best of them have at least given a little thought to epistemology. A lot of the conceptual models that scientists build are just like necessary scaffolding for the true predictive theories they hide. String theory is a bit of an exception to that rule, and is really just an attempt to reconcile such conceptual models with each other, without providing predictive or descriptive power of any sort (yet). It is a worrisome deviation from the proper scientific search for pattern. Nevertheless, scientists are starting to realize this, and it is losing favor.

Perhaps approaching it as an ontological issue is an adequate response to all of those people (with all of that time, brain power and money) who are approaching the question of 'how existence is' - scientifically via physics,

I don't see ontology for its own sake as a cure for the problems of ontology for its own sake. Epistemology. That's what scientists seriously need to study.

That's just like asking, if we've never experienced magic, then how do we know what a magic trick is?

It's exactly like asking how we know what magic is when we've never seen it. That said, the second part of the post you responded to was intended to subsume the first part. Or eliminate it really, by removing the problems that it brought up. So, rather then sneak into analogy and assume we understand what magic is, I think we're better off saying we know what it is because we know how to use the term.

Are there any things you can think of that are not made up of different parts of things that you have experienced?

Color, texture, taste. Things like that are considered simples. I cannot conceive of a color I've never seen. I can imagine a car I've never seen, insofar as it is built from simples I have experienced. I realize that we can look at things as such that a color is composed of different things, but that more-or-less ignores the point at hand. What's important is that we can identify simples that cannot be conceived of without experience, and that those things we imagine without experiencing are composed of them. It's empiricism 101 (which doesn't mean you have to be an empiricist to accept it).

In all possible worlds, there are certain things that are a certain way. This we can be certain about.

I'd say that there are things we cannot imagine being otherwise. They are those propositions who's negation violates rules of grammar or the established meaning of terms.

No, I assure you, you've got it wrong. It is not a separate thing with a location separate from another thing. You are definitely on the wrong track here.

... and you are definitely taking me way too literally.

What do you mean correctly? Correctly according to what?

You, me, the aggregate of English speaking people. Someone. It really doesn't matter to whom. Just correctly in general.

What about learning about a ball by experiencing the ball for yourself and then learning the word 'ball' from others who have also experienced it?

The experiences ball are just that. There is nothing to understand about them (in a manner of speaking). I've already described exactly why it doesn't make sense to think we simply ostensively learned the name we give them from someone pointing. At least not upon learning language originally. How should we know what pointing is to mean after all? It is itself a language act. Also, how should we know that words are supposed to reference or indicate things?

Who knows, at first a child might get confused in that manner, but it all gets sorted out.

Yes it does. The child eventually learns to better mimic others usage of language through trial, error, and correction. An important point to keep in mind here is that language does things at its heart. Children are unaware originally that the words they use are even supposed to reference anything. They just tend to mimic the behavior of others and realize that words do things. They realize that saying 'mom' gets attention from mom before they know that it is to refer to their mom.

There's a significant difference between the word unicorn and your sensory experience of an image of a unicorn.

There is nothing to understand about the sensory experiences unicorn*. Although, yes, there is a significant difference.

Your point, I'm guessing, is that the phrase 'hidden void' is a word that is nonsense? I think the difference here is that the word hidden void does have a meaning. That it is the father of consciousness/phenomena. The word has a meaning and relationship to phenomena, functioning to account for it on some level.

I'm not saying that 'hidden void' is nonsense. I'm just saying that there is nothing to understand about it beyond its usage in particular language games.



*'Unicorn' can be thought of as referring to a pattern of sensation (in a sense). We could say that there is something to understand about how that pattern fits into the larger patterns, but going into that is a bit beyond the scope of what I'm trying to discuss here.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

WhorlyWhelk,

In this case materialism and idealism would amount to the same.

That's precisely it right there.

[Jamesh]

Elizabeth wrote:

I agree with the left hand side of your diagram, but UR is not exactly equal to the hidden void. The hidden void could best be represented as the box itself. The hidden void is another dimension onto which all else is superimposed

Perfectly correct. I've done some neat pictures as well, that I'll post soon. Lol, I've called one the Great Tit of The Totality (it looks like that due to the superimposition of circles within larger circles).

The void does not contain anything, which is why it must be in a different dimension from the reality that is able to be perceived directly.

It is actually the other way around. It is the physical world that does not contain anything (which I admit sounds like an
irrational thing to say, but it is where the Buddhist idea of emptiness can be taken to). The physical world exists as a caused entity. Being caused by the void it does not self-originate. All that fundamentally exists, exists only in the void. The physical world is merely the in-between-ness, the caused boundary between unchangable absolutes. The physical world exists only as an outcome.

The physical world is a different dimension, in the sense that it is Not Dimension A and Not Dimension B. In not being either of these, but rather being the dualistic unity of these two voidal dimensions, their unity forms a boundary in between, and this boundary could be referred to as a dimension. The physical world is like the shape of a box, without any of the content that makes up the box.

The void has either four or two dimensions, depending on how one wishes to define a dimension. As four separate dimensional entities, there are “Expansion, Contraction, Instant Time and Static Time. However, it may be that the terms Expansion and Contraction are really just referents to what “Time Really Is”, in which case there would only be two dimensions in the void.

I prefer defining four dimensions though, because Dualism in both the physical and voidal worlds is itself two dimensional – any dualistic set has an intrinsic association with a different, and partially opposite, dualistic set – one dualistic set exists within another dualistic set, but each dualistic set can be identified because it exists at “90 degrees” from the other set – it is halfway different, halfway opposite.

For example, the dualistic set of a Black circle on White paper results in a non-dualistic total image of black upon white. Lets call this horizontal dualism. However, none of this would be observable, and thus would be non-existent without the vertical or criss-crossing dualistic set of Static Time and Instant Time. The black and white image is an Effect. Effects are the partial illusion of staticness. An apple is an apple because it does not immediately change its form into something else. We name it an apple because of its static form, we don’t name the material the apple came from or dissolves into an apple. Effects, at the polarised extreme represents Static-Time. If there is an effect, then there are causes for these effects. We never see causes, we only ever observe the affects of causes, namely changes to Effects. From the perspective of the polarised extreme, if causes were not instant then we would be able to see them as effects. These causes represent Instant-Time.

Now it is important to note we cannot observe anything that is extremely polarised. We observe that Effects do change, that they are not truly static, and at the level of a whole thing we can also observe Causes - a tennis ball bounces of the ground. This is because we are generally only seeing the central area within a dualistic set, rather than the extremes. The extremes are in the void, not in our physical world, without being in a merged form they are beyond our observational reach. We see ratios of both fundamental dualities – when we see a thing, we are viewing a set of X% expansion and Y% contraction, and we are viewing it within a timeframe that is X% instant and Y% static.

[Imadrongo]

Elizabeth wrote:

I agree with the left hand side of your diagram, but UR is not exactly equal to the hidden void. The hidden void could best be represented as the box itself. The hidden void is another dimension onto which all else is superimposed

Perfectly correct. I've done some neat pictures as well, that I'll post soon. Lol, I've called one the Great Tit of The Totality (it looks like that due to the superimposition of circles within larger circles).

I for one would find them useful.

The void does not contain anything, which is why it must be in a different dimension from the reality that is able to be perceived directly.

It is actually the other way around. It is the physical world that does not contain anything (which I admit sounds like an
irrational thing to say, but it is where the Buddhist idea of emptiness can be taken to). The physical world exists as a caused entity. Being caused by the void it does not self-originate. All that fundamentally exists, exists only in the void. The physical world is merely the in-between-ness, the caused boundary between unchangable absolutes. The physical world exists only as an outcome.

I was flagging this too. Whatever is in the "hidden void" must have real existence rather than contingent existence that the physical world has, right? Our consciousness for one must have real existence in some form in the "hidden void."

[Jamesh]

Our consciousness for one must have real existence in some form in the "hidden void."

No, it does not have a real existence in the void. Consciousness is a structural entity, it is dependent on the structure of a brain, and the structure of the void is simple causal duality. It has a "more real" existence in the void, but only in the sense that its causal nature never ceases. Consciousness comes from the extraordinarily complex interplay of expansion and contraction, due to evolution, not from some form of voidal or universal consciousness.

Now don't think evolution is some rule of the universe, it is not, it is just a name we give to the effect of the balancing out processses of the forces over time as they take the path of least resistence [resistence just means where one of the two forces cannot manifest to it maximum degree, due to the existing presence of the other in that spatial area]. I don't expect you to get what I'm indicating here, as it needs a tonne more explanation than I've given - but you never know.

[Imadrongo]

Our consciousness for one must have real existence in some form in the "hidden void."

No, it does not have a real existence in the void. Consciousness is a structural entity, it is dependent on the structure of a brain

We know of no brains outside consciousness. However I think I see where you are coming from with your expansion contraction theorizing.

, and the structure of the void is simple causal duality. It has a "more real" existence in the void, but only in the sense that its causal nature never ceases. Consciousness comes from the extraordinarily complex interplay of expansion and contraction, due to evolution, not from some form of voidal or universal consciousness.

Yea what I meant was that it is "more real" than the world we see which is contingent upon our consciousness, which is contingent upon -whatever-.

Now don't think evolution is some rule of the universe, it is not, it is just a name we give to the effect of the balancing out processses of the forces over time as they take the path of least resistence [resistence just means where one of the two forces cannot manifest to it maximum degree, due to the existing presence of the other in that spatial area]. I don't expect you to get what I'm indicating here, as it needs a tonne more explanation than I've given - but you never know.

I can somewhat follow along. If you have any resources or links that would better describe this stuff I would entertain the read.

[Jamesh]

I can somewhat follow along. If you have any resources or links that would better describe this stuff I would entertain the read.

I don't have any resources other than my posts over the years. It is still a developing theory, and one in which I have changed tack quite a lot. To make it presentable I really need to spend time going back through any stuff I've happened to save and rewrite it so that a clear progression is shown as to why I make certain statements. A hell of a lot of work and I'm quite lazy, perhaps one day.

There are two posts on this thread, which are OK. Scroll down to Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:49 am.

Also, please note that my theory falls apart at the most fundamental level, as I am unable to conceptualise how something can come from nothing. My theory requires this, as it seeks to find a causal reason for everything. Just what is it that causes the existence of absolute poles in the first place.

It is not that I in any way think that the totality came from nothing, to me it has always been and always will be, but more that my theory takes for granted the existence of the Expansionary force, Contracting Force, Static Time and Instant Time - somehow these things permanently cause each other. My strong intuition is that it is something inherent in the causal nature of time.

Don’t discount it for that reason however, as the theory, to me, is more logically robust than theories such as "a singularity caused a big bang" or "God caused the universe".

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The void does not contain anything, which is why it must be in a different dimension from the reality that is able to be perceived directly.

It is actually the other way around. It is the physical world that does not contain anything (which I admit sounds like an
irrational thing to say, but it is where the Buddhist idea of emptiness can be taken to). The physical world exists as a caused entity. Being caused by the void it does not self-originate. All that fundamentally exists, exists only in the void. The physical world is merely the in-between-ness, the caused boundary between unchangable absolutes. The physical world exists only as an outcome.

I was flagging this too. Whatever is in the "hidden void" must have real existence rather than contingent existence that the physical world has, right? Our consciousness for one must have real existence in some form in the "hidden void."

I think what we're looking at is a semantics disagreement. The hidden void is everywhere, and everything is superimposed on it, so in a way a person could say that it contains everything, but void means nothing in it. I agree with James' point that the physical world does not contain anything either - at least from an Ultimate Reality viewpoint - but that does not really make it the other way around. It makes it - as David Quinn says - that "nothing really exists."

[Imadrongo]

It makes it - as David Quinn says - that "nothing really exists."

I think it is highly misleading to say this because David Quinn uses "to appear" as the definition of "exist" rather than a common definition like "to be".