The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Iolaus]

Windhawk,

Yes, this is straying a bit off our inquiry line, but we must await the maestro's return. In the meantime--

What other possible manifestation of Being, but also being & stuff is there?

Yes, I agree that information is the manifestation of Being, or the mode of manifestation.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. " (K.J.V.)

That is information. So, No; not the Son of God, but the Spirit.

I see the Spirit as the ether, as the uncreated energies of God, and also as the vehicle for the kind of gnosis Mikiel is talking about. The Spirit is not about words or organizational forces (structure, the elements), but is the fire of existence, life. It is "the force."

So I call the 'Word' (information) the Son of God because we have:
God (mystery of intrinsic existence)
Spirit (the ever-emanating nature of God)
Word (the information that allows a manifest universe)

That is why the Son is 'begotten' of the Father but not the Spirit, and why the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but not from the Son, Roman errors notwithstanding.

Mikiel,

I'm with ya. I'll have to check out your site.

[Jehu]

Hello Jehu,

Well, count me in for the long haul. I'm definitely interested in where you're going with this. You do almost talk over my head. Have you taken formal courses in western philosophy? I sometimes lose a bit of patience with excess formalism, and you have said that you do not want intuitive leaps. Do you at least respect the fact that many an intuitive leap turns out right and leads to the same place as the painstaking steps?

Personally, I find them at least as reliable, especially, if they're mine! But never mind, this is your thread...

Perhaps, but then we can never be certain; at least, not until we have reasoned it through.

I'm going back through your posts to try to tie these concepts down a bit, and I found this:

Therefore, if a thing were truly non-existent, it could have neither a designation nor a definition, and so would be utterly inexpressible. Consequently, such a thing could neither be perceived nor thought about (imagined).

Which is quite interesting to ponder, because really it means there is no such thing as nonexistence. Perhaps that strays from the topic at hand...

Yes, this is precisely what it means: non-existence is by its very definition “non-existent”. It is only be force of habit that we use the term, for it signifies nothing and can be defined only in terms of what it “is not”.

I'm having a little trouble with quality and relation. For example, why is the 'extension' of matter a relation?

When we speak of “extension”, we mean that the quality in question (e.g., mass) is distributed spatially, and as anything that may be distributed must necessarily entail some sort of components, these components must then stand in a relationship to one another. It is this embodied relationship (form) that the mind recognizes, and to which is assigns a name. This will become clearer as we examine the two possible modes of being.

Well now, this is why I say that the existential nature of Being is an utter mystery and this is why there has to be a God. For you cannot get something from nothing, and yet there must be something possessed of of the astonishing ability to exist intrinsically. I cannot fathom it.

I am having some trouble equating the mass and extent of a marble, which do complement each other but are both ordinary sense material, with the two modes of being, intrinsic and extrinsic. That would mean that the mass of the marble is intrinsic, and that brings me right back to my original problem - how does that marble exist. Why does it exist? It's not the forming into marbles, but the existence of matter that puzzles me.

Let me see if I can't shed some light on it - step by step. First, it is vital to understand that there are only ‘two’ possible modes of being, and that these two modes cannot exist independently (separately); for the reasons I have already stated. Hence, the two modes stand in a relationship which we shall call the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’; that is to say, each mode is dependent upon the other mode for its existence, and the two modes complete one another in that universe of discourse which we have called Being. This principle differs from the mathematical ‘Principle of Complementarity’ in one essential aspect: the two complementary elements have no existence independent of one another. In other words, although the nature of being is dyadic (two-fold), it is not dualistic; that is to say, it does not comprise two independent principles (not two). Now, as to the two possible modes of being:

That entity which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes partakes of a ‘necessary’ (absolute) being, for if its intrinsic causes exist, then too must the entity itself necessarily exist; it causes constituting that which is necessary and sufficient to its existence. An absolute entity, if such an entity exists, must then have always existed, for an absolute entity cannot arise or cease or undergo any sort of alteration whatsoever. Neither can an absolute entity have any relationship to anything extrinsic, for to be related is to enter one into the other; and in doing so, to alter the essential nature of both. Consequently, an absolute entity may be said to be ‘unbounded’.

Conversely, that entity which is dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being partakes of only a ‘contingent’ (relative) existence, for its extrinsic causes must necessarily exist independent of and antecedent to the entity itself. Such an entity may either arise or not arise, depending upon whether or not its causes come together in the appropriate relationship; that is to say, the correct mode of distribution. Further, given that its extrinsic causes are subject to external influences, their relationship to one another is constantly changing, and so too does the relative entity abide in a state of perpetual flux.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

I am answering rather quickly, but I might not have time to come back for a day or two.

Let me see if I can't shed some light on it - step by step. First, it is vital to understand that there are only ‘two’ possible modes of being, and that these two modes cannot exist independently (separately); for the reasons I have already stated. Hence, the two modes stand in a relationship which we shall call the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’; that is to say, each mode is dependent upon the other mode for its existence, and the two modes complete one another in that universe of discourse which we have called Being.

OK, I have gone back yet again and I agree that there are only two modes of being - intrinsic and caused. But where have you shown that they cannot exist independently? This is precisely a question I have - must there always be manifestation? The Hindus apparently believed in an "incarnation of Brahma" that was, I think, about 11 trillion years long, or perhaps it was 23. And a maverick scientist I greatly respect named Paul La Violette has written a book refuting Big Bang and using some physics and ancient myth to propose an alternate theory of matter causation. It involves sequential universes with a nonmanifesting period in between. He thinks the Hindu time frame reasonable.

In other words, although the nature of being is dyadic (two-fold), it is not dualistic; that is to say, it does not comprise two independent principles (not two).

That the one is dependent is obvious, but what about the other?

Neither can an absolute entity have any relationship to anything extrinsic, for to be related is to enter one into the other; and in doing so, to alter the essential nature of both.

That almost seems to contradict what you just said. Interdependent but no relation? There must be a definition problem.

[windhawk]

This one is fun.

But, of course, I was wrong to declare that information IS being (go kick a wall, see if it hurts!).

Information is ALL that we can know. The Neoplatonists are right; however, I am not dogmatic about it. The Buddhists seem to have a grip on everything but God himself. So radical; so afraid (that'll make 'em angry). Existence is an emanation (overflowing), the next step IS death; but you will not be alone.

A love that loves its self.

Gain knowledge and learn to love your fellow man.

So, Schopenour was right (except, about happiness being an absence of pain), and Nietzsche IS wrong. A will to live, not a will to power. What the hell was Heidegger talking about anyway?

The End of Philosophy, and the Task of Being.

[bert]

bert on Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:51 am

suergaz wrote:
The Will to survive isn't it?
Nietschke thought it was lust for power..
Nevertheless we haven't sat naked, dripping with rain, in the cold..being Spiritual.
We have sought to manipulate things to enhance our survivability.

Nietzsche was right! Human nature, and not only nature, is will to power! The drive, infinity itself. One finds nothing in its denial.

Certain Taoists also believe in magic. Lao Tzu said something to the effect: "The will, when combined with virtue, allows for the Universe to follow the sage." From my own experience, when emersed in the whole, the will is all that exists.

the abyss Self projecting from non-resistance the procreatrix I,was the great chance and beginning: to extend the purpose of desire - for Time to make all existence inexact - those things kept ever vague.
thus was the will to operate unbegotten.
one thing nominally,everything alternatingly desirous.that which is first desired is permitted,then externalized and taken away by a circumlocution of beliefs becoming law.
no knowledge would seperate us from the virtues of non-existence but that for man - having become involved with disease,all his food is poisonous;his complete saturation is inevitable that he may become healthy.thus man wills by thought.
by the simulation of death by the utter negation of thought the Body is allowed to manifest spontaneously and is arbitrary and impervious to reaction.
only he who is unconscious of his actions has courage beyond good and evil:and is pure in his wisdom of sound sleep.
Will to pleasure is the basic function underlying all activity whether conscious or not, - and whatsoever the means.

[Jehu]

OK, I have gone back yet again and I agree that there are only two modes of being - intrinsic and caused. But where have you shown that they cannot exist independently?

First, let me say that both modes of being are “caused”, the causes of the one being intrinsic to the entity itself, and the causes of the other being extrinsic. I say this because it is not only the arising and ceasing of a entity that is dependent upon the relationship between its causes, but also it continuation.
Since the realm of being, as we have agreed, is a singular and continuous realm, it follows that any partitioning of this realm must be a purely intellectual undertaking; that is to say, the mental differentiation of classes or instances of beings based upon their essential characteristics or appearance. Therefore, when I say that there are two possible modes of being, I am intellectually partitioning the realm of being into that (if anything) which has the characteristic of being possessed of its own intrinsic causes, and that (if anything) which does not possess this characteristic. Now, when I claim that these two modes are interdependent, I mean neither mode can partake of an ‘independent’ existence, for that would require a true partitioning of the realm of being, and this is not possible; therefore, it follows that the two modes must be ‘interdependent’; there being no intermediate alternative.

Neither can an absolute entity have any relationship to anything extrinsic, for to be related is to enter one into the other; and in doing so, to alter the essential nature of both.

That almost seems to contradict what you just said. Interdependent but no relation? There must be a definition problem.

My statement was that an absolute entity can have no relationship to anything “extrinsic”, and this is the key to rationalizing the two mode of being. For if the two modes are related, and they must necessarily be, then the relative entity must abide intrinsically within the absolute entity; and the absolute entity must be unbounded. That is to say, the absolute entity is related to the relative entity, as is a container to its contents; or more specifically, as is Space to Time.

[mikiel]

Jehu,
No reply to my last post re: the non-dual yet dyadic nature of "Kosmos", (cosmic consciousness) to cosmos (its body.) So I'll pick up my point again in response to your recent statement, as follows:

" An absolute entity, if such an entity exists, must then have always existed, for an absolute entity cannot arise or cease or undergo any sort of alteration whatsoever. Neither can an absolute entity have any relationship to anything extrinsic, for to be related is to enter one into the other; and in doing so, to alter the essential nature of both. Consequently, an absolute entity may be said to be ‘unbounded’."

As a scientist, one must either accept (like religious believers) that cosmos was created out of nothing or realize that it has always existed and will never "end," i.e., perpetually, eternally cyclical. This is just the manifest "extrinsic" cosmos, But eternal, omnipresent, absolute consciousness itself is One with the cosmic body ("not two", non-dual yet two fold, manifest body *and* transcendental consciousness.)
This truth directly contradicts your statement above,
"Neither can an absolute entity have any relationship to anything extrinsic, for to be related is to enter one into the other; and in doing so, to alter the essential nature of both."
I'll set aside for now the question of cosmic "unboundedness" and await your reply, if any, to the above.

Well... a quick preliminary statement on the latter:
Manifest cosmos is finite yet both space and consciousness are infinite. Likewise our human bodies are temporal while the Consciousness Which animates them is eternal, which is "known" through mystic realization... gnosis.

Care to reply?
mikiel
ps: I'll be gone for a week.

[Jehu]

mikiel,

I am neither a ‘scientist’ nor a ‘religious believer’, and I know nothing at all of ‘mystical realizations’. I am a simple philosopher, and I believe only in the Laws of Reason, and the importance of a rational enquiry. Therefore, if you think that my argument is not logically valid, I should like to see a rational counter argument, and not some unverifiable appeal to mystic revelation.

Now, please do not misunderstand me, for I do not see that our two positions are at all contradictory - though it is evident that you do, I simply do not wish to have the enquiry clouded by the introduction of unsubstantiated hypotheses, and the interminable barrage of contentious arguments that inevitably follow.

[windhawk]

This is fun.

However, you are wrong.

A will to live, not a will to power.

The Mad German Was MAD.

Such beautiful language... Celine, Sartre, Camus, Hiedgger, Hemingway, Harrison, Ellison...

Men with balls!

Bing it on! "I took a lighter, and I held it to my eye!"

"Gentleman Junkie"

"I was loved, was loved, and died."

"Or rather, having gone out in the rain in order to deceive my lover, I caught cold an died."

"I was awake, for a long time, before I realized my heart was broken."

[mikiel]

mikiel,

I am neither a ‘scientist’ nor a ‘religious believer’, and I know nothing at all of ‘mystical realizations’. I am a simple philosopher, and I believe only in the Laws of Reason, and the importance of a rational enquiry. Therefore, if you think that my argument is not logically valid, I should like to see a rational counter argument, and not some unverifiable appeal to mystic revelation.

Now, please do not misunderstand me, for I do not see that our two positions are at all contradictory - though it is evident that you do, I simply do not wish to have the enquiry clouded by the introduction of unsubstantiated hypotheses, and the interminable barrage of contentious arguments that inevitably follow.

(Still here... delayed departure.)
Re: your statement:
" Neither can an absolute entity have any relationship to anything extrinsic, for to be related is to enter one into the other; and in doing so, to alter the essential nature of both."...

My approach as posted previously on this thread could be called my version of "a critique of pure reason."

Please first define or give example of what you mean by "an absolute entity." Apparently you do not consider "consciousness" of any sort to be such an absolute.
I do. And there are no boundaries in consciousness. It is all One manifesting in/as all individuals/forms.

Then please explain your objection to my characterization of consciousness and cosmos as not only "related" but unified as two aspects of one reality.
Also do you subscribe to the doctrine that empirical evidence for the existential validity of the cosmos is irrelevant to reason and philosophy?
If the latter is true, then your philosophy and reason are irrelevant to life in the "real world", and I'm not interested in further discourse, which I would then call mere mental masturbation.

mikiel

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

First, let me say that both modes of being are “caused”, the causes of the one being intrinsic to the entity itself, and the causes of the other being extrinsic. I say this because it is not only the arising and ceasing of a entity that is dependent upon the relationship between its causes, but also it continuation.

Perhaps. Since I can't understand the nature of a self-causing entity, I don't know whether applying the word 'cause' is appropriate to it.

Since the realm of being, as we have agreed, is a singular and continuous realm, it follows that any partitioning of this realm must be a purely intellectual undertaking; that is to say, the mental differentiation of classes or instances of beings based upon their essential characteristics or appearance. Therefore, when I say that there are two possible modes of being, I am intellectually partitioning the realm of being into that (if anything) which has the characteristic of being possessed of its own intrinsic causes, and that (if anything) which does not possess this characteristic. Now, when I claim that these two modes are interdependent, I mean neither mode can partake of an ‘independent’ existence, for that would require a true partitioning of the realm of being, and this is not possible; therefore, it follows that the two modes must be ‘interdependent’; there being no intermediate alternative.

This is where I'm stuck. I can see where the extrinsically caused realm cannot exist at all on its own, but not the other way round.

My statement was that an absolute entity can have no relationship to anything “extrinsic”, and this is the key to rationalizing the two mode of being. For if the two modes are related, and they must necessarily be, then the relative entity must abide intrinsically within the absolute entity; and the absolute entity must be unbounded.

I agree on the face of it, because that is already what I think. But I do not see what you mean by saying that they are related, yet that the absolute entity has no relationship to anything extrinsic. Seems like a contradiction.

But I do agree that the relative exists within the absolute.

That is to say, the absolute entity is related to the relative entity, as is a container to its contents; or more specifically, as is Space to Time.

Oh, that's an interesting way to look at it. You think that space contains time?

[divine focus]

My statement was that an absolute entity can have no relationship to anything “extrinsic”, and this is the key to rationalizing the two mode of being. For if the two modes are related, and they must necessarily be, then the relative entity must abide intrinsically within the absolute entity; and the absolute entity must be unbounded.

This is where paradox appears. If there is an Absolute on one side and thought on the other, thought would be a reflection of the Absolute. Thought could only exist if the Absolute exists, but where does this reflection of the Absolute happen? Can the Absolute reflect itself within iteslf? Does not compute.

This is the birth of ego, as there may be something outside of the Absolute--namely, thought--that is reflecting the Absolute and therefore is another Absolute. There can only be one Absolute, so thought begins to divorce itself of the actual Absolute--which is Love!--and therefore divorce itself of its actuality. Thoughts are then believed, since they are now the Absolute.

A belief need not be believed; it is simply a thought. The truth is not in the thought but what the thought reflects. If it only reflects other thoughts, the Absolute is misidentified.

Thought cannot understand the Absolute because it can't contain it. The Absolute may see itself in many places and know that it is the same. It may also merge with itself and give birth to itself. Seemingly invalid parameters.

[Jehu]

Please first define or give example of what you mean by "an absolute entity." Apparently you do not consider "consciousness" of any sort to be such an absolute.

I have already defined what it is to be an absolute entity: “that which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes”, but as to an example, this will be difficult to do, as we have yet to demonstrate that there is such an entity. Thus far in our enquiry, we are still investigating the possibility that there exists such an entity, and what its essential characteristics would be.

[Jehu]

Perhaps. Since I can't understand the nature of a self-causing entity, I don't know whether applying the word 'cause' is appropriate to it.

By “causes” I mean simply “that which is necessary and sufficient to its being”.

This is where I'm stuck. I can see where the extrinsically caused realm cannot exist at all on its own, but not the other way round.

It is really quite simple: there can be no concept of an inside (intrinsic) without that there is also a concept of an outside (extrinsic); for what would meaning would there be in assigning a characteristic to something, unless there were something else that did not possess that same characteristic. For example, what possible sense would it make to say that something was ‘red’, for example, if there were not anything that was ‘not red’. So you see, ‘red’ and ‘not red’ are interdependent and complementary concepts; interdependent because they would be meaningless on their own, and complementary in that they complete one another, for if we amalgamate everything that is red, and everything that is not red, then we have included every possible thing - without exception.

I agree on the face of it, because that is already what I think. But I do not see what you mean by saying that they are related, yet that the absolute entity has no relationship to anything extrinsic. Seems like a contradiction.

But I do agree that the relative exists within the absolute.

Again, an absolute entity can relate only to that which is intrinsic (inside), for given that it is unbounded, it cannot be meaningfully said to have an outside; just as we cannot meaningfully say that there is anything beyond (outside) the realm of being. Conversely, the relative entity can relate only to that which extrinsic (outside), for given that is possesses no intrinsic causes, it cannot meaningfully be said to have an inside. Therefore, if the two are related, and the must certainly be, then the relative entity must abide within the absolute entity; and thus the relative is an intrinsic cause of the absolute entity, and the absolute entity is an extrinsic cause of the relative entity; and so it follows that the two modes of being are interdependent and complementary.

[brokenhead]

But, of course, I was wrong to declare that information IS being (go kick a wall, see if it hurts!).

I'm not so sure how wrong you were.

Information theory has tied information fundamentally to entropy and degrees of freedom. It is information that cannot move faster than light, i.e., signals. Quantum effects seem to violate the speed limit of light. Yet it is information which cannot be piggy-backed onto quantum phenomena.

"In the beginning was the WORD," indeed.

[windhawk]

Nope, gota' hide that theory. Someone might steal it.

Nah, information is the ultimate constituent of reality.

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

By “causes” I mean simply “that which is necessary and sufficient to its being”.

OK

It is really quite simple: there can be no concept of an inside (intrinsic) without that there is also a concept of an outside (extrinsic); for what would meaning would there be in assigning a characteristic to something, unless there were something else that did not possess that same characteristic. For example, what possible sense would it make to say that something was ‘red’, for example, if there were not anything that was ‘not red’. So you see, ‘red’ and ‘not red’ are interdependent and complementary concepts; interdependent because they would be meaningless on their own, and complementary in that they complete one another, for if we amalgamate everything that is red, and everything that is not red, then we have included every possible thing - without exception.

But this only shows that there cannot be a name or concept for the All. We use names, like God, because that's how our minds work. Suppose that everything was red. Yes indeed, assigning a color would then be meaningless. But that does not negate the possibility of everything being red.

just as we cannot meaningfully say that there is anything beyond (outside) the realm of being.

This I understand.

Conversely, the relative entity can relate only to that which extrinsic (outside), for given that is possesses no intrinsic causes, it cannot meaningfully be said to have an inside.

This is a bit tough. I have not encountered such a thought. Not sure how to visualize it.

Therefore, if the two are related, and the must certainly be, then the relative entity must abide within the absolute entity; and thus the relative is an intrinsic cause of the absolute entity, and the absolute entity is an extrinsic cause of the relative entity; and so it follows that the two modes of being are interdependent and complementary.

Can't quite compute this. Plus, it seems a bit horrifying.

[Iolaus]

Jehu said,

'm not so sure how wrong you were.

Information theory has tied information fundamentally to entropy and degrees of freedom. It is information that cannot move faster than light, i.e., signals. Quantum effects seem to violate the speed limit of light. Yet it is information which cannot be piggy-backed onto quantum phenomena.

But that does show that information is not primal, which was my point, anyway.

[divine focus]

Jehu,

Therefore, if the two are related, and the must certainly be, then the relative entity must abide within the absolute entity; and thus the relative is an intrinsic cause of the absolute entity, and the absolute entity is an extrinsic cause of the relative entity; and so it follows that the two modes of being are interdependent and complementary.

Can't quite compute this. Plus, it seems a bit horrifying.

I would say that the absolute and the relative are one and the same, since the absolute is all there actually is. The relative would be a "part" of the absolute, and so its existence would be irrefutable and absolute as well.

Jehu said,

'm not so sure how wrong you were.

Information theory has tied information fundamentally to entropy and degrees of freedom. It is information that cannot move faster than light, i.e., signals. Quantum effects seem to violate the speed limit of light. Yet it is information which cannot be piggy-backed onto quantum phenomena.

But that does show that information is not primal, which was my point, anyway.

It depends on what we mean by "information." I would say that information as perceivable data--including all senses and feelings--is not primal, but the potential for that data is. In other words, what forms that data into perceptible forms, or the form the data exists in before it is sensed, is fundamental. This is saying something, because what is perceivable data has a vast range. For instance, quantum effects that violate the speed of light, or the speed of light for us, as brokenhead might say, may be caused by data perceivable by energy at the quantum level.

[brokenhead]

Jehu said,

'm not so sure how wrong you were.

Information theory has tied information fundamentally to entropy and degrees of freedom. It is information that cannot move faster than light, i.e., signals. Quantum effects seem to violate the speed limit of light. Yet it is information which cannot be piggy-backed onto quantum phenomena.

But that does show that information is not primal, which was my point, anyway.

Actually, that was brokenhead who said that. And indeed I agree that information is not primal. Logically information requires at least two other things, as I see it, an informer and an informed. Lacking either would make it data instead. But maybe that's being too semantically anal.

[Jehu]

It is really quite simple: there can be no concept of an inside (intrinsic) without that there is also a concept of an outside (extrinsic); for what would meaning would there be in assigning a characteristic to something, unless there were something else that did not possess that same characteristic. For example, what possible sense would it make to say that something was ‘red’, for example, if there were not anything that was ‘not red’. So you see, ‘red’ and ‘not red’ are interdependent and complementary concepts; interdependent because they would be meaningless on their own, and complementary in that they complete one another, for if we amalgamate everything that is red, and everything that is not red, then we have included every possible thing - without exception.

But this only shows that there cannot be a name or concept for the All. We use names, like God, because that's how our minds work. Suppose that everything was red. Yes indeed, assigning a color would then be meaningless. But that does not negate the possibility of everything being red.

But what possible meaning could we attribute to the term “red”, if everything was possessed of this one characteristic, for such a characteristic would then be universal, and thus would be of no use whatsoever in differentiating one thing from another. And if we cannot differentiate between things on the basis of a characteristic, can we meaningfully call it a “characteristic” (whatness); this being the very question that arises with regard to the existential predicate (thatness). If everything were of one and the same colour, then the whole notion of colour would be rendered pointless; just as if everything were of one and the same size, what possible meaning could there be in say that they were small, medium or large.

Conversely, the relative entity can relate only to that which extrinsic (outside), for given that is possesses no intrinsic causes, it cannot meaningfully be said to have an inside.

This is a bit tough. I have not encountered such a thought. Not sure how to visualize it.

A relative entity does not exist in-and-of-itself, but in the “relationship” between other things (its parts): its constitutive causes (essence); and in the absence of these “other things” the relative entity has no existence whatsoever. In other words, a relative entity is not a true entity, but merely the appearance of such.

Imagine that there were a white sphere on a black background, and that the sphere was the entity, and the whiteness was its essence (that aspect witch is perceptible). This symbolizes the absolute mode of existence; for the essence (whiteness) abides inherently within the entity (sphere). Now, imagine a black sphere of a white background, and that the essence (whiteness), rather than abiding within the sphere itself, is extrinsic. This symbolizes the relative entity, which although it has the appearance of an entity, is in reality, merely an illusion.

For example, a bicycle consists in its parts, but these parts are not inherent in the bicycle, but must exist independent of and antecedent to the bicycle itself. Consequently, a bicycle may either exist or not exist, depending on the coming together of its parts, and even more important, its parts must stand in the appropriate relationship to one another, if they are to constitute a bicycle.

Therefore, if the two are related, and the must certainly be, then the relative entity must abide within the absolute entity; and thus the relative is an intrinsic cause of the absolute entity, and the absolute entity is an extrinsic cause of the relative entity; and so it follows that the two modes of being are interdependent and complementary.

Can't quite compute this. Plus, it seems a bit horrifying.

If the relative mode of being is merely apparent, then there must be another mode of being which is cognizant (aware), and the relative world must abide within the sphere of this cognizant awareness - which is real. Is this not a reasonable assumption?

[Jehu]

Jehu,

Therefore, if the two are related, and the must certainly be, then the relative entity must abide within the absolute entity; and thus the relative is an intrinsic cause of the absolute entity, and the absolute entity is an extrinsic cause of the relative entity; and so it follows that the two modes of being are interdependent and complementary.

Can't quite compute this. Plus, it seems a bit horrifying.

I would say that the absolute and the relative are one and the same, since the absolute is all there actually is. The relative would be a "part" of the absolute, and so its existence would be irrefutable and absolute as well.

Clearly they are one and the same “existentially”, but they are "essentially" different, and this is why we are able to draw the distinction. However, the point that I am trying to make is this: the two modes of being (absolute and relative) are interdependent as well as complementary, and neither can be said to exist in the absence of the other.

[mikiel]

brokenhead wrote:
" Yet it is information which cannot be piggy-backed onto quantum phenomena."

You are apparently unfamiliar with quantum entanglement. Once a pair of quantum particles "get acquainted" they become perfect "dance partners" such that, no matter the distance between them (literally!) when one changes spin, the other does too, immediately.
No one yet has the smallest clue as to how they literally keep in touch at a distance, but they do.

(Note: Most everyone here is intimidated by science, much preferring the comfort and pleasure of mental masturbation. You seem the exception, but you're clearly not up to speed on quantum particle entanglement.)
mikiel

[brokenhead]

brokenhead wrote:
" Yet it is information which cannot be piggy-backed onto quantum phenomena."

You are apparently unfamiliar with quantum entanglement. Once a pair of quantum particles "get acquainted" they become perfect "dance partners" such that, no matter the distance between them (literally!) when one changes spin, the other does too, immediately.
No one yet has the smallest clue as to how they literally keep in touch at a distance, but they do.

(Note: Most everyone here is intimidated by science, much preferring the comfort and pleasure of mental masturbation. You seem the exception, but you're clearly not up to speed on quantum particle entanglement.)
mikiel

I am pretty familiar with QM having studied it and having tried to keep up with current developments.

I think you will find that I'm correct about this. Although it seems like the perfect dance partners are immune to any distance between them, you cannot use this "quantum entanglement" to send information.

It is true that researchers do keep trying to utilize the phenomenon of quantum entanglement in order to transmit a signal, ie, information. So far they have not been successful, and the speed of light remains the physical limit of how fast signals can be sent.

If you can link me to any source that says otherwise, I sure would love to see it. I am under the distinct impression, however, that most physicists believe that as bizarre as entanglement effects are, they will not be able to use them for communication.

I just checked in a couple of recent QM textbooks and they concur with this. Research is always ahead of the texts, naturally, so again, if you can link me to some that supports what you are saying, I'd welcome it.

[mikiel]

brokenhead,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
I was alluding to the information transfer between the particles which keeps them in perfect synch at a distance.
I am not aware either of information other than the above being "piggy-backed" onto this mysterious connection. Seems I didn't quite grok your usage of "piggy-backing" above.

Still, quite an amazing phenomenon. But then again we still don't know how gravity works across the cosmos... just that changes in G-force travel at lightspeed, but ongoing force is constant... not in discrete packets requiring carrier quanta.

mikiel
PS: I missed a piece in this reply.
Regarding the following:
"It is true that researchers do keep trying to utilize the phenomenon of quantum entanglement in order to transmit a signal, ie, information. So far they have not been successful, and the speed of light remains the physical limit of how fast signals can be sent."

It is my understanding that entangled quantum particles communicate and respond to the signal "switch spin direction" instantaneously without regard to distance between them. So, in principle, immediate communication at any distance is established by the particles themselves "dancing together." True, we can not yet "attach a note" of additional info, but lightspeed is no longer the absolute speed limit for info transfer.
mikiel