The Thickness of Boundaries

[marcothay]

Vegetable "minds" are aware of the energy surrounding them.

Animal "minds" are aware of stuff happening around them.

Human "mind" is aware...TO BE AWARE.

[BMcGilly07]

Vegetable "minds" are aware of the energy surrounding them.

Animal "minds" are aware of stuff happening around them.

Human "mind" is aware...TO BE AWARE.

TO BE AWARE of what?

[Shahrazad]

David Quinn,

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end?

There would have to be a boundary of some kind to divide the space that exists from the one that does not. You'd have to call that boundary something.

I'm having a hard time visualizing this.

[Loki]

I hear ya, Sharaz, it's mind boggling.

[marcothay]

Vegetable "minds" are aware of the energy surrounding them.

Animal "minds" are aware of stuff happening around them.

Human "mind" is aware...TO BE AWARE.

TO BE AWARE of what?

AWARE OF being aware. (who am I?)

[David Quinn]

David Quinn,

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end?

There would have to be a boundary of some kind to divide the space that exists from the one that does not. You'd have to call that boundary something.

I'm having a hard time visualizing this.

Our inability to visualize something doesn't constitute proof of its non-existence. There was a time when humans couldn't visualize the ability to create fire at will.

In any case, it is easy enough to imagine scenarios of space appearing to come to an abrupt end. For example, a wall of sheer blackness. You stick your arm through and it temporarily disappears.

-

[Shahrazad]

David,

Our inability to visualize something doesn't constitute proof of its non-existence.

It definitely doesn't.

In any case, it is easy enough to imagine scenarios of space appearing to come to an abrupt end. For example, a wall of sheer blackness. You stick your arm through and it temporarily disappears.

What would happen if you stick your whole body? You'd instantly disappear without a trace.

[Blair]

What a simpleton.

[Shahrazad]

Says the forum's ignorant asshole.

[David Quinn]

In any case, it is easy enough to imagine scenarios of space appearing to come to an abrupt end. For example, a wall of sheer blackness. You stick your arm through and it temporarily disappears.

What would happen if you stick your whole body? You'd instantly disappear without a trace.

Maybe. The point is, unless there is a logical reason why space can't suddenly come to an end, we have no choice but to classify it as an empirical possibility. It could be, for example, that such an end represents the limits of a virtual reality that we live in, a bit like what happens in computer games.

Of course, in such a scenario, it wouldn't necessarily represent the real end of space.

Says the forum's ignorant asshole.

Prince might be an asshole, but I'm not sure that he's all that ignorant. It's hard to say what his understanding of things is really like, but he seems quite intuitive to me. He does have a nose for bullshit and a gift for summing up people in a few words. Until he is ready to flesh out his thoughts in a more detailed manner, it's hard to comment any further. He is amusing, though.

At some stage, he will need to come out of the closet and expose his thinking to the world, if only for the sake of his own development.

-

[Shahrazad]

David,

Of course, in such a scenario, it wouldn't necessarily represent the real end of space.

No, it wouldn't. Let's stick to the real end of space. Virtual ones won't do.

Prince might be an asshole, but I'm not sure that he's all that ignorant. It's hard to say what his understanding of things is really like, but he seems quite intuitive to me.

Discussing prince would be a total waste of my time. I'll pass.

[Blair]

Ha.

I assure you, it is not I who is ignorant. But you will likely never, ever figure that out, let alone the causes of your own suffering.

I prince am just a passer-by, a gawker at the tragedy that is your life.

I sneer, but have compassion.

I judge, but am judged three-fold.

I know, but give not.

Go fuck yourself, the ignorant.

I have infinite compassion.

[Loki]

how the hell do I realize the infinite?

Stopping the habit of looking in the wrong place would be a start.

You won't find the infinite in a particular experience or perception, no matter what it is or how big it seems. Instead, you need to uncover what it is that is constant in all experiences and perceptions

Well I understand duality is constant in all experiences and perceptions. If there was only one, there would be no-thing.

A thing requires duality. It requires two. The thing and the otherness. You can't have one without the other.

That is something I have realized clearly.

This means detaching yourself from all experiences and seeing underneath them, as it were. One does this by understanding the way in which each experience is fundamentally an illusion, which is achieved by understanding the formlessness of Nature/God.

Ok, that's what I want. I want to realize this. Can you give me a hint?

This, in turn, involves understanding the nature of causality, the nature of relativity, the illusory nature of objective reality, and so on.

Yes, all of that I want to realize. I just don't know how.

The way I've come to see it is:

If you came across this wall, you could know with absolute certainty that it had another side, and this is because a wall must have thickness, and the existence of thickness demands that there be two opposing sides, and two opposing sides, by logical necessity, always creates space, and space must always be infinite.

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end?

My mind is repelled by such an idea, but I suppose it could be possible if we were in a computer simulation of some kind.

[David Quinn]

how the hell do I realize the infinite?

Stopping the habit of looking in the wrong place would be a start.

You won't find the infinite in a particular experience or perception, no matter what it is or how big it seems. Instead, you need to uncover what it is that is constant in all experiences and perceptions

Well I understand duality is constant in all experiences and perceptions. If there was only one, there would be no-thing.

A thing requires duality. It requires two. The thing and the otherness. You can't have one without the other.

That is something I have realized clearly.

That's a good start. The next thing to do is explore the logical implications of this realization.

This means detaching yourself from all experiences and seeing underneath them, as it were. One does this by understanding the way in which each experience is fundamentally an illusion, which is achieved by understanding the formlessness of Nature/God.

Ok, that's what I want. I want to realize this. Can you give me a hint?

This, in turn, involves understanding the nature of causality, the nature of relativity, the illusory nature of objective reality, and so on.

Yes, all of that I want to realize. I just don't know how.

Studying my Wisdom of the Infinite will help. It was designed for precisely this purpose.

Also check out Kevin Solway's Poison for the Heart, as well as the teachings of Chuang Tzu, Gautama Siddhartha, Huang Po, and various Buddhist Sages. They all explore this material with clarity and depth.

Keep in mind, though, that you have to do all the hard work yourself. This material can do no more than stimulate you in the right direction. It won't be able to work its magic unless you throw your whole mind into it.

-

[Rhett]

Things with zero thickness can only exist in the realm of the imagination.

I don't want to disturb the flow of the discussion, but this is an interesting point.

In reality, things with zero thickness can't even exist as imagination. If a thing is imagined then it will have thickness. And if nothing is imagined, there will not be a thing.

A thing with zero thickness can only 'exist' in so much as it is written in words.

All things have zero thickness, any thickness is projected by the mind. Because all things arise interdependently, their being interpenetrates and does not obstruct any other thing.

Every thing presents in some manner and has boundaries conceptually ascribed. Therefore every thing has thickness.

[Sapius]

David Quinn,

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end?

There would have to be a boundary of some kind to divide the space that exists from the one that does not. You'd have to call that boundary something.

I'm having a hard time visualizing this.

A boundary need not be solid as a wall, and that too is relatively solid to begin with. How about that which defines or gives the sense of where a thing ends and another begins? We can define both in any case, can't we? In fact if it were not for those perpetually sensed boundaries, how exactly would one consider a self, conscious at all?

If, space, which is something, comes to a sudden end, then that would mean that there is nothing (which is impossible in an absolute sense), beyond that point of space or 'something', so by the virtue of space coming to a sudden halt, a boundary would then lie between something and nothing. IMO, a boundary need not have any “thickness” as such, but simply a defined reality OR a sensed/felt (pressure) boundary we call or feel as physical.

[Sapius]

David: Prince might be an asshole, but I'm not sure that he's all that ignorant. It's hard to say what his understanding of things is really like, but he seems quite intuitive to me. He does have a nose for bullshit and a gift for summing up people in a few words. Until he is ready to flesh out his thoughts in a more detailed manner, it's hard to comment any further. He is amusing, though.

At some stage, he will need to come out of the closet and expose his thinking to the world, if only for the sake of his own development.

Just wondering… would I be so wrong in considering that our friend Prince, might have more than one screen names… well… I guess it doesn’t really matter… With all due respects, it might well be a Princess for all I know.. :D

No offence Prince :)

[Rhett]

Prince reminds me of a guy that used to come here called suergaz, who i privately nicknamed sewergas. I find that anyone that point blank opposes my character is not interested in what this forum is about. But maybe i've only just met him and we'll see what happens.

[Rhett]

DQ: Things with zero thickness can only exist in the realm of the imagination.

R: In reality, things with zero thickness can't even exist as imagination. If a thing is imagined then it will have thickness. And if nothing is imagined, there will not be a thing.
A thing with zero thickness can only 'exist' in so much as it is written in words.

B: All things have zero thickness, any thickness is projected by the mind. Because all things arise interdependently, their being interpenetrates and does not obstruct any other thing.

R: Every thing presents in some manner and has boundaries conceptually ascribed. Therefore every thing has thickness.

Bryan, when i was talking about things having thickness i was referring to the x and/or y axis. People were talking about "the thickness of boundaries", so i was thinking in that way.

I think you are talking in terms of depth, the z axis.

[jupta]

The boundary of an object cannot be said to exist to our perception, if we do not know precisely where the object begins and ends and where the boundary begins and ends.

[Jamesh]

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end?

Which is not possible.

Maybe. The point is, unless there is a logical reason why space can't suddenly come to an end, we have no choice but to classify it as an empirical possibility.

Space cannot come to an end because time can have no beginning or end. Neither can be separated from the other. Time's obvious logical infinity requires that space have no end. Whatever any entity might think was an end, would only be a delusion of limited observational capability, as you were pointing to.

Things are infinite inwardly, as well as being infinite outwardly. Things are just form, not content of course, but even within a set form one could never reach the dead centre, for there is none. What is there, which is space-time, would just be too distant in both time and space relative to our observation point, that we would reach a point where all we saw was empty space. This empty space would however still have an infinity within, an infinity that included form that was of the same general nature as what we observed whilst descending within.

A "within" relative to another thing is a "without", and as the "without" is infinite then there can be is no separated "within". What is within must also, taking another perspective, be a without. Without thus equals Within, simultaneously. This is why we can now apparently observe entanglement effects.

In this conceptual environment the term "end" loses logical possibility. No entity can ever encompass infinity, it can only journey along its dualistic inflowing and out-flowing whirlpool for a finite time. On the journey what we can see however is that everything along that path is essentially of the same nature.

It could be, for example, that such an end represents the limits of a virtual reality that we live in, a bit like what happens in computer games.

Our virtual reality would always be the limits of what we can observe and compute, regardless of what the nature of the most-powerful catalyst that caused our existance. Any creator would have the same limits, so who cares.

[Rhett]

Ha.

I assure you, it is not I who is ignorant. But you will likely never, ever figure that out, let alone the causes of your own suffering.

I prince am just a passer-by, a gawker at the tragedy that is your life.

I sneer, but have compassion.

I judge, but am judged three-fold.

I know, but give not.

Go fuck yourself, the ignorant.

I have infinite compassion.

That reeks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

[brokenhead]

In calculus in three dimensions, it is possible to calculate the exact volume of an object that can be described by parametric equations, which includes many simple objects, like a sphere.

You can calculate the volume of the sphere including its boundary surface, and you can calculate its volume excluding the boundary surface. These two volumes are always equal. So in this sense, the thickness of boundaries can be said to be zero.

But I am speaking of a mathematical idealization, as all theories in cosmology are expressed mathematically. Mathematically, the length of a line is the same whether or not you include its boundaries, which would be the endpoints. The endpoints form what is known as a "set of measure zero." This is a well-known concept in calculus.

[marcothay]

The boundary of an object cannot be said to exist to our perception, if we do not know precisely where the object begins and ends and where the boundary begins and ends.

Have you ever hit your feet or your head with something solid?
I think that the perception you felt (pain) tells you where the boundary begins! :)

[Rhett]

The boundary of an object cannot be said to exist to our perception, if we do not know precisely where the object begins and ends and where the boundary begins and ends.

All boundaries are defined to exist in a given location by words. The definition of any given thing tells us where the boundaries have been drawn. Boundaries exist conceptually, for conceptual reasons. There are no boundaries other than these. Boundaries other than these cannot exist.