Isn't death more wonderful than life!

[Imadrongo]

Go ahead and reject it, then.

Just because there is an inside doesn't mean there is an outside.

[divine focus]

Why do you call it an inside, then?

[Unidian]

Just because there is an inside doesn't mean there is an outside.

The term "inside" is meaningless without implicit reference to its complementary opposite, "outside." What is darkness if there is no light? Up if there is no down? Etc, etc.

Every thing, phenomena, idea, concept, and thought is dualistic like that. Only Nature itself is beyond dualism, and therefore beyond conceptualization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_dialectic

[Imadrongo]

Unidian,

Just because there is an inside doesn't mean there is an outside.

The term "inside" is meaningless without implicit reference to its complementary opposite, "outside." What is darkness if there is no light? Up if there is no down? Etc, etc.

Yes. And these terms are hence only at all valid when talking about the empirical world that we live in. When you try to extrapolate "inside" into the metaphysical realm you make a great error to think there must still be some "outside".

Empirical world -> Concepts (NOT)-> "absolute world" or "beyond empirical world"

[divine focus]

"Metaphysics" is outside of time just by definintion. There can be no "inside of time" when talking metaphysics. You either consider metaphysics or you don't. If you don't, leave it and anybody involved in it alone. If you do, don't hamstring yourself by thinking only rationally or "scientifically."

[truth_justice]

Things are always becoming. You can think of the universe as an AI program that constantly modifies itself to no particular end.

[maestro]

When thinking about death, I find it useful to bear in mind that even death cannot erase a person from existence. Death has applicability only with reference to time. But time is not as "absolute" as most people imagine. Outside the framework of time, existence is eternal.

I agree with this statement. Let me elaborate, the passage of time is perceived by consciousness due to memory. Thus the universe is not evolving or going through time but only appears such to the consciousness. The universe exists in all times at once, similarly there is dissolution of consciousness when viewed with the lens of time, but it is eternal as all other things.

And does this not imply that cause and effect is an artifact of consciousness, since if there is no time there is no cause and effect.

[divine focus]

Things are always becoming. You can think of the universe as an AI program that constantly modifies itself to no particular end.

True, but with a particular direction.

[Imadrongo]

Things are always becoming. You can think of the universe as an AI program that constantly modifies itself to no particular end.

True, but with a particular direction.

The AI computer with trillions of little programs running in it altering each others' binaries. All of the programs do their own thing as is programmed so in a sense they have direction, but on the whole there is no reason to believe that the computer is aiming anywhere.

[Jamesh]

Yes. And these terms are hence only at all valid when talking about the empirical world that we live in. When you try to extrapolate "inside" into the metaphysical realm you make a great error to think there must still be some "outside".

Empirical world -> Concepts (NOT)-> "absolute world" or "beyond empirical world"

The outside world is the world of form - it is the "pattern of causes". The inside world is the content of this form - it is "what causes". By observing change, the causal relationship of one form to another, and generalising this to it's most abstract dualistic level, we actually do see the inside world constantly - the relationship between one thing and another cannot be any different to such relationships inside a particular thing. The inside world is simply the forces of expansion and contraction, the outside world is where they meet and become a duality. In the physical realm the inside and outside world are co-existent in every point of everything. In the underlying realm, they co-exist and are dualistic in a causal sense, they create each other, but otherwise they exist as non-dualistic entities and are thus non-spatial and non-physical.

[Imadrongo]

The outside world is the world of form - it is the "pattern of causes". The inside world is the content of this form - it is "what causes".

Random speculation?

The inside world is simply the forces of expansion and contraction, the outside world is where they meet and become a duality.

Doesn't make sense. "Expansion and contraction" are already a duality. Opposing forces are a duality.

In the physical realm the inside and outside world are co-existent in every point of everything.

So are the middle world, the post-outside world and the pre-inside world, plus the random_i_just_made_this_up_also world. Why do we need extra worlds? I see no purpose.

In the underlying realm, they co-exist and are dualistic in a causal sense, they create each other, but otherwise they exist as non-dualistic entities and are thus non-spatial and non-physical.

Sorry I'm just not buying this. How can the inner world be non-spatial and non-physical and yet every point in space in our world supposedly corresponds to the point in the inner world (previous quote)?

[divine focus]

The AI computer with trillions of little programs running in it altering each others' binaries. All of the programs do their own thing as is programmed so in a sense they have direction, but on the whole there is no reason to believe that the computer is aiming anywhere.

In this case, the AI is each of the trillion little programs. If the programs have individual directions, it all works to bring about the direction chosen by the AI. Think quantum computing with consciousness as the "head."

[Imadrongo]

The AI computer with trillions of little programs running in it altering each others' binaries. All of the programs do their own thing as is programmed so in a sense they have direction, but on the whole there is no reason to believe that the computer is aiming anywhere.

In this case, the AI is each of the trillion little programs. If the programs have individual directions, it all works to bring about the direction chosen by the AI. Think quantum computing with consciousness as the "head."

Why must there be a head?

[Jamesh]

Me: The outside world is the world of form - it is the "pattern of causes". The inside world is the content of this form - it is "what causes".

Neil: Random speculation?

Well OK, don’t you believe that nothing is certain, so therefore is not everything thus "random speculation".

It's actually a conceptual framework I've been slowly formulating for about 5 years.

Duality is my philosophy. The QRS are non-dualists. As a part of my general curiosity about reality, I've been trying to assess whether non-dualism is a valid deduction, but have been unable to find any logical reason for such a belief.

Me: The inside world is simply the forces of expansion and contraction, the outside world is where they meet and become a duality.

Neil: Doesn't make sense. "Expansion and contraction" are already a duality. Opposing forces are a duality.

You don’t really want me to go into this you know!

I'm not sure what you are inferring above. You need to think of contraction as being just like gravity, an invisible thingness that pulls inward, and expansion the opposite, anti-gravity - but without any dependence on there being any physical things to produce these. In reality, it is not that physical things cause gravity, but gravity and anti-gravity together cause physical things.

One can arrange the linear conceptual chain of physicality we humans have, as follows:

Space at one extreme, then the electromagnetic wave or energy spectrum, then the sub-atomic spectrum, then the table of elements, then the vast arrange of compounds, then physical things we can see, then spectrum of larger things like stars and galaxies, til we get to the other extreme, the Totality. We can see that each level is formed from more than one instance of the preceding link in the chain.

In this chain however, there is the inside world, the cause of all these things. Something even comes before space to cause space. One must apply the same logic to what causes space to what causes any other level in the chain. E=Mc2. One cannot abandon logic and suddenly say "what cause space is a non-duality". Space however, can logically be formed by two opposites that have no physical presence, but whose only property of existence is that one "causes expansion" and the other "causes contraction". The problem I have is that expansion and contraction are words that apply to the post-spatial realm, whereas I am talking about the pre-spatial realm, so one has to use one's imagine and think of them in an abstract sense.

Also, try not to think of Duality as being mono-directional. At every point between two extremes, each point, and the whole, has another dualistic relationship outside of the particular dualistic perspective you may think of. Dualistic interaction is both linear (as seen by the existence of order, sequences, physical absolutes and time) and non-linear (as seen by the existence of 3-dimensionality, as all-directional space, and which does not have distinct points of existence).

Expansion and contraction are a duality and they are forces (in the sense they cause change, they affect, they power the universe, as well as create it).

Me: In the physical realm the inside and outside world are co-existent in every point of everything.

So are the middle world, the post-outside world and the pre-inside world, plus the random_i_just_made_this_up_also world.

From my comment one can infer a) the more science delves into the physical structure of things, the closer they will get to empty space. There are no fundamental particles b) every segment of the universe, whether a string, quark or a planet, or a light ray, or space will have an inside world that causes what is being observed.

Why do we need extra worlds? I see no purpose.

Too picky to bother with. I'm not a scientist trying to prove extra-dimensions for some dud QM theory. inside and outside is just another duality.

Me: In the underlying realm, they co-exist and are dualistic in a causal sense, they create each other, but otherwise they exist as non-dualistic entities and are thus non-spatial and non-physical.

Neil: Sorry I'm just not buying this. How can the inner world be non-spatial and non-physical and yet every point in space in our world supposedly corresponds to the point in the inner world (previous quote)?

Its just another level of a duality of opposites. If there is space and dimensions, as there is, then there must be the opposite of space and dimensions.

Everything has an opposite, but you must know how to find that opposite, as it is kind of arbitrary, and this is because all things with mass have many layers of relativity. In the physical hierarchy of thingness, the opposite to say an apple might be the next level down in the chain, or a few levels down, or a level up. If an apple was converted to wave form, this would be a significant opposite.
In the case of physical things the absolute opposite would be the two forces in a divided state.

You'll say, "well something is either opposite or it isn’t". The problem here is that our thinking about opposites relies on false premises. Everything specific we think of as being opposite is linked by something in common: Male/Female (same species), Power Off/On (switch mechanisms), Black/White (colour) Night/Day (earth) etc. They are all opposite in a limited way, but nonetheless there will be some attribute that is in no way the same as what it is being compared to.

The above infers that that may not really be any true opposites, that duality is all just imagined.
I don’t think so. To me if there is any differentiation at all, and there obviously is, that what causes this must also be differentiated, and the lower one goes down the chain of physical forms, the more distinct this opposition is, until finally one reaches non-layered existence where opposition is absolute. Going the other way one reaches the totality of all there is, which is where the idea of non-duality stems from. Logically there is a single One only of "all there is". The thing is though, that this creates another duality, the duality of "duality and non-duality". It also creates a duality with "all there is not - spatially!", which is not nothing at all (an impossibility), or what we might be able to imagine (the non-existence of our moon being made of cheese) but it is the totality of everything without spatial existence, which is the fundamental expansion and contraction forces.


Now, I doubt you'll get any of the above. You already have a pre-conceived distaste for it, and won’t be able to see why the overall logic is certain, because the reality picture I paint is so extremely abstract (to the point of being not able to be visualise the picture - such is the nature of the hidden world or void). Not to worry, no one else does either, but I keep going back to this topic to improve the web of logic it entails, for myself mainly.

[truth_justice]

The AI computer with trillions of little programs running in it altering each others' binaries. All of the programs do their own thing as is programmed so in a sense they have direction, but on the whole there is no reason to believe that the computer is aiming anywhere.

In this case, the AI is each of the trillion little programs. If the programs have individual directions, it all works to bring about the direction chosen by the AI. Think quantum computing with consciousness as the "head."

The AI computer with trillions of little programs running in it altering each others' binaries. All of the programs do their own thing as is programmed so in a sense they have direction, but on the whole there is no reason to believe that the computer is aiming anywhere.

In this case, the AI is each of the trillion little programs. If the programs have individual directions, it all works to bring about the direction chosen by the AI. Think quantum computing with consciousness as the "head."

Why must there be a head?

The idea of "direction/progress/evolution" is a concept we get from "with-in"* the universe. We get the concept from comparing similar things. However, it does not follow that the concept applies to the universe as a whole. Just like it does not follow that if a car's engine is on, the car is moving or heading in some direction. There is change in the parts, but not in the whole.

The universe is perfect as it is**. Why? Because there is nothing "outside" of it one can compare it to. All comparisons are self comparisons, A=A sort of thing. Why? The simple answer has to do with "opposites". See Monism. Basically there are no true opposites***. Which means that everything is part of ONE - as in ALL IS ONE. Which in tern means, there is nothing outside of the universe. And if so, nothing to compare the universe to. Hence the universe is perfect because it is always compared to itself. It follows that one cannot make the universe more/less perfect and that there is no one state towards which the universe is heading to. No direction/progress/evolution/etc.! At least not from the perspective of the whole/universe.

I have to say Neil is right. And besides, if we are wrong, then what direction is the universe heading? You must know if you claim so!

* I am using "with-in" because there is no word to describe what I mean. If you wish to understand, think of the thing of which everything and yet nothing can be said of.
** Perfect in the sense "It is what it is"
*** If you believe there are such things as true opposites, then please tell me the opposite of these basic geometric figures: Triangle, Square & Circle.
How about the color blue? What is the opposite of blue?

[Unidian]

Duality is my philosophy. The QRS are non-dualists. As a part of my general curiosity about reality, I've been trying to assess whether non-dualism is a valid deduction, but have been unable to find any logical reason for such a belief.

Have you looked at dialectical monism? Just curious.

DM is basically a way of saying "dualism and non-dualism are both right in their own way."

[divine focus]

The universe is perfect as it is**. Why? Because there is nothing "outside" of it one can compare it to. All comparisons are self comparisons, A=A sort of thing. Why? The simple answer has to do with "opposites". See Monism. Basically there are no true opposites***. Which means that everything is part of ONE - as in ALL IS ONE. Which in tern means, there is nothing outside of the universe. And if so, nothing to compare the universe to. Hence the universe is perfect because it is always compared to itself. It follows that one cannot make the universe more/less perfect and that there is no one state towards which the universe is heading to. No direction/progress/evolution/etc.! At least not from the perspective of the whole/universe.

I have to say Neil is right. And besides, if we are wrong, then what direction is the universe heading? You must know if you claim so!

I have to make a distinction between the universe and All. The universe is not all there is! It's ridiculously huge, but not limitless. The All, which is you, is physical and non-physical. The All is perfect, but the universe in time has a direction (though it may be circular). It gets its direction from the All, just like we do.

[Kevin Solway]

The universe is not all there is! It's ridiculously huge, but not limitless.

If you define the universe to have a boundary, then what is on the other side of the boundary, and why do you exclude that from the universe?

[divine focus]

The properties of the physical universe far exceed what we know of in cosmology. I don't know if there is a "boundary," per se, or what would be on the other side of it. Even if I did, explaining it would probably take a rewriting of all of physics. The point is, though, that everything isn't everything.

[Pincho Paxton]

The AI computer with trillions of little programs running in it altering each others' binaries. All of the programs do their own thing as is programmed so in a sense they have direction, but on the whole there is no reason to believe that the computer is aiming anywhere.

In this case, the AI is each of the trillion little programs. If the programs have individual directions, it all works to bring about the direction chosen by the AI. Think quantum computing with consciousness as the "head."

Think of quantum computing connected to sentience. It would work, but the computer would have to be made of the materials that can connect to the sentience, which would be biological components, and therefore the computer would be part biological, and so in a way you have not created a computer, you have created a lifeform. This wordplay with English language has taken your mind off the ball.

[Kevin Solway]

The universe is not all there is! It's ridiculously huge, but not limitless.

If you define the universe to have a boundary, then what is on the other side of the boundary, and why do you exclude that from the universe?

The properties of the physical universe far exceed what we know of in cosmology. I don't know if there is a "boundary," per se, or what would be on the other side of it. Even if I did, explaining it would probably take a rewriting of all of physics.

You said that the universe is "not limitless" - which means it is limited, and therefore has limits.

What I'd like to know is where is the limit, and why would we decide to put the limit at that particular point and not somewhere else? Or why bother to put a limit there at all?

Or are you saying now that you don't know if the universe has limits, and therefore you don't know whether it is limitless or not?

The point is, though, that everything isn't everything.

So A=A is false? :-)

I guess what you're saying is that what people commonly think of as the "universe" is whatever they can see immediately around them, and they don't care about anything else. I'll go along with that.

[divine focus]

Or are you saying now that you don't know if the universe has limits, and therefore you don't know whether it is limitless or not?

What we would consider to be the universe has a limit. Beyond would be considered chaos in our current scientific framework.

I guess what you're saying is that what people commonly think of as the "universe" is whatever they can see immediately around them, and they don't care about anything else. I'll go along with that.

Yeah. The "universe" is all that can be perceived, all that can be experienced. Our current experience is only a fraction of what's actually there, physically.

[truth_justice]

Or are you saying now that you don't know if the universe has limits, and therefore you don't know whether it is limitless or not?

What we would consider to be the universe has a limit. Beyond would be considered chaos in our current scientific framework.

I guess what you're saying is that what people commonly think of as the "universe" is whatever they can see immediately around them, and they don't care about anything else. I'll go along with that.

Yeah. The "universe" is all that can be perceived, all that can be experienced. Our current experience is only a fraction of what's actually there, physically.

You should seriously consider the following distinction: Appearance v.s. Reality. You are equating the two when you say [The "universe" is all that can be perceived, all that can be experienced.] What you are calming is something like: Blind people can't perceive or experience colors, therefore the universe has no colors. Unacceptable! I am sorry.

Yet you say [Our current experience is only a fraction of what's actually there, physically] which contradicts ["universe" is all that can be perceived, all that can be experienced]

[Kevin Solway]

You should seriously consider the following distinction: Appearance v.s. Reality.

I think what divine focus is saying is that the scientists have a particular definition of "universe" which is limited to what they can detect with their current instrumentation.

But I have a different definition of "universe", since I define it to contain all things - and not just those we are currently aware of.

[truth_justice]

You should seriously consider the following distinction: Appearance v.s. Reality.

I think what divine focus is saying is that the scientists have a particular definition of "universe" which is limited to what they can detect with their current instrumentation.

But I have a different definition of "universe", since I define it to contain all things - and not just those we are currently aware of.

I guess my definition and yours are similar, if not the same. If divine focus wishes to make this distinction, and thinks it wise, so be it. Fair enough.