Formlessness (inside & outside)

[Loki]

How can we know for certain that the totality is formless (infinite)?

Isn't it possible for there to be an interior without an exterior.

When you introduce an exterior, by logical necessity, you always invite formlessness.

But what if our universe has no outside? Isn't it possible for the universe to be bounded by something which has no outside?

What I'm trying to get at is really hard to articulate.

[Matt Gregory]

That's right. There is nothing outside the totality simply going by the definition of "totality".

[mikiel]

From my last entry in the "Cosmology and Kosmos" thread:

I agree with your description of what "isotropic" means.
If I remember correctly, I was agreeing with Broke that the cosmos looks relatively the same over long distances in all directions, i.e., "smooth" rather than "lumpy" on large scale.
But my (mystic) vision is that all we can see, given the cosmic event horizon limit, is but cosmic matter all at one locus/sphere within the "thickness" of the membrane of the expanding "balloon" of cosmos. That is, the known cosmos is but a sphere of "vision" contained within one small piece within the ever expanding "rubber" of the entire baloon membrane. We can not see beyond the balloon either in the direction of its expansion or in the direction of its (cyclical) origin. And, from this perspective, it looks "smooth."

It is, however, expanding into the infinite void of space... whch is not all the same density as the cosmic matter we can "see."

So to elaborate on your OP, the "bubble" of cosmos is finite but expandng outward into the infinity of space. There may be other "bubbles doing the same**... maybe to eventually "run into each other", but of course this is shear speculation, even from the limited perspective of my mystic vision.... in which our cosmic event horizon is limited to a small sphere *within the thickness* of the "rubber" of the overall expanding "balloon" of cosmos.

(**We have no clue to the extent of the actual "totality" of all matter/energy/plasma in the *universe*... meaning *all there is.*)

I'll leave it there for now. Hope it makes sense. Open to questions to clarify my meaning.

[Loki]

That's right. There is nothing outside the totality simply going by the definition of "totality".

But does the definition of totality necessarily imply formlessness? Just because the totality has no exterior, does not necessarily mean it's formless. Or does it?

[Loki]

So to elaborate on your OP, the "bubble" of cosmos is finite but expanding outward into the infinity of space. There may be other "bubbles doing the same.

Ok, but what if there is one ultimate bubble, the biggest of all bubbles. And what if this bubble is not expanding, but is simply still. And what if this ultimate bubble had no outside, but only had an interior. This would imply that the totality had a form, but only on the inside.

[Matt Gregory]

But does the definition of totality necessarily imply formlessness? Just because the totality has no exterior, does not necessarily mean it's formless. Or does it?

Well, form implies that a boundary exists which is defining that form. If a boundary were to have an inside but no outside (or an outside but no inside for that matter), then in what way would the boundary exist? It wouldn't because there wouldn't be anything being bounded.

Forget about bubbles and expansion and so forth with respect to the totality. Those things only apply to things with form. When you say that a certain thing expands, it implies that there's the thing and the expansion and that without the expansion that thing would still be fully understandable, but no such logic can be applied to the totality. Nothing can be removed from the totality without misunderstanding it.

[mikiel]

So to elaborate on your OP, the "bubble" of cosmos is finite but expanding outward into the infinity of space. There may be other "bubbles doing the same.

Ok, but what if there is one ultimate bubble, the biggest of all bubbles. And what if this bubble is not expanding, but is simply still. And what if this ultimate bubble had no outside, but only had an interior. This would imply that the totality had a form, but only on the inside.

"What if?... indeed. Science sees cosmos as expanding, in fact, accellerating in its rate of expansion. But "cosmos" (as we know it) is defined by the cosmic event horizon... that the speed limit of light traveling immense distances limits how far we can see... both in the direction of the expansion and in the direction of the origin of the expanding cosmic "stuff."

I have seen in mystic vision that this cosmic event horizon is all within the thickness of the "rubber" of the expanding (from the Big Bang) "balloon"...
A small "sphere" (in all directions we look) within the "membrane" of the larger sphere of the whole "Big Bang" cosmos... the expanding balloon.

Space is infinite. It is imopssible to define a boundary or end of space. Cosmos then is discussed on different levels of "size." Only pretenders will claim to know the extent (size, shape, dynamics) of *all there is* the original meaning of the word uni-verse... read "totality" in common usage here.

BTW, any cosmological model as a "bubble" or "balloon" must have an inside ( void or of less density than its membrane) and an outside... the relatively empty space surrounding it, whether it is expanding or not.

[mikec23]

If Totality is formless, it is void of form and therefore does not exist.
Trying to conceptualize about a concept leads to an infinite regress, in other words, "it's turtles all the way down".

[Loki]

But does the definition of totality necessarily imply formlessness? Just because the totality has no exterior, does not necessarily mean it's formless. Or does it?

Well, form implies that a boundary exists which is defining that form.

But must a boundary have a space on each side of it?

Picture this line:

left | right

The boundary (the line) has a left side and a right side. Is it possible for a boundary to only have one side?

Picture yourself in a small room. The boundary of the room consists of 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor.

What if the totality is a container (like a room) that has no outside?

That would mean that the totality is finite and had form.

If a boundary were to have an inside but no outside (or an outside but no inside for that matter), then in what way would the boundary exist? It wouldn't because there wouldn't be anything being bounded.

Sure there would! The living space is bounded by 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor.

The universe may be a cube.....

Deep stuff.

*smiley icon smoking pot*

[divine focus]

But does the definition of totality necessarily imply formlessness? Just because the totality has no exterior, does not necessarily mean it's formless. Or does it?

Well, form implies that a boundary exists which is defining that form.

But must a boundary have a space on each side of it?

Picture this line:

left | right

The boundary (the line) has a left side and a right side. Is it possible for a boundary to only have one side?

Picture yourself in a small room. The boundary of the room consists of 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor.

What if the totality is a container (like a room) that has no outside?

That would mean that the totality is finite and had form.

That could only be if there was a nothingness outside the container. You can't escape the need for an outside concept if your thinking of a form.

To me, the Totality is both form and formless.

[Nick]

If a boundary were to have an inside but no outside (or an outside but no inside for that matter), then in what way would the boundary exist? It wouldn't because there wouldn't be anything being bounded.

Sure there would! The living space is bounded by 4 walls, a ceiling and a floor.

Boundaries can only exist between one thing and another. If something shares a boundary with nothing, then obviously it is not bounded. Based on this the Totality is necessarily boundless, and without bounds there can be no form. This is why we fall into all kinds of contradictions when we try to project a form on to the Totality. It does not, and can not work.

[Jason]

Based on this the Totality is necessarily boundless, and without bounds there can be no form. This is why we fall into all kinds of contradictions when we try to project a form on to the Totality. It does not, and can not work.

The contradiction is believing that there is a formless Totality. The simple fact that you can conceive of a formless Totality proves that there isn't one - because any conception is itself a form. Not to mention the obvious brute reality that there are forms surrounding you everywhere at all times.

So what is the use of this imaginary formless Totality?

[Blair]

So what is the use of this imaginary formless Totality?

To get a fucking grip, to use vulgar words.

The totality has form in its formless-ness. That is it's form.

[Jason]

Another worthless cryptic post from prince. Are you trying to be cleverly laconic but just can't pull it off?

[tek0]

This is show on Steven Hawking's Paradox where he posits some strange claim.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=d ... &start=100

[Blair]

Another worthless cryptic post from prince. Are you trying to be cleverly laconic but just can't pull it off?

That's for you to decide.

Are you happy, Boy?

[mikec23]

All supposed boundaries that can be ascribed to Totality are simply illusory, mental constructs, as are the opposing non-boundaries. An object can not manifest and maintain another object.
It's not that hard to grasp guys....all this mental masturbation is just silly and a monumental waste of time.

[Nick]

The contradiction is believing that there is a formless Totality. The simple fact that you can conceive of a formless Totality proves that there isn't one - because any conception is itself a form.

Understanding the logical truth that the Totality is necessarily formless is in no way projecting a form on to it. It's actually the complete opposite, which is demonstrating through logic that it is necessarily formless. Thinking about something does not necessitate projecting a form on to it. You have to see the ridiculousness of your assertion.

Not to mention the obvious brute reality that there are forms surrounding you everywhere at all times.

Your grasp on logic is worse than I suspected if you think this even comes close to proving that the Totality has form.

So what is the use of this imaginary formless Totality?

Use it for whatever you want, or don't use it at all, I really don't care. But that's not what this is about, it's about the truth.

[Jason]

The contradiction is believing that there is a formless Totality. The simple fact that you can conceive of a formless Totality proves that there isn't one - because any conception is itself a form.

Understanding the logical truth that the Totality is necessarily formless is in no way projecting a form on to it. It's actually the complete opposite, which is demonstrating through logic that it is necessarily formless. Thinking about something does not necessitate projecting a form on to it. You have to see the ridiculousness of your assertion.

Maybe the problem is that we're approaching this from different angles. Perhaps the following will help clear things up:

The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.

Not to mention the obvious brute reality that there are forms surrounding you everywhere at all times.

Your grasp on logic is worse than I suspected if you think this even comes close to proving that the Totality has form.

I'm important enough in your life for you to have suspicions about me?! How sweet. Group hug! :)

I have suspicions about you too: that you're prone to having flare ups of anger when discussing philosophy on GF and that this interferes with the clarity of your mind.

So what is the use of this imaginary formless Totality?

Use it for whatever you want, or don't use it at all, I really don't care. But that's not what this is about, it's about the truth.

The truth is that reality is filled with forms - so obviously this "formless Totality" isn't about reality or truth, it's a fantasy in your head.

[divine focus]

The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.

But does the meaning of the concepts have form? Isn't meaning more like a feeling (unlike simple information)?

[Jason]

The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.

But does the meaning of the concepts have form? Isn't meaning more like a feeling (unlike simple information)?

Meanings and feelings are forms too, they have characteristics and qualities.

[Nick]

The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.

You're confusing the concept with the actual Totality.

The truth is that reality is filled with forms - so obviously this "formless Totality" isn't about reality or truth, it's a fantasy in your head.

Reality contains forms, but reality as a whole can not posess form, because Ultimate Reality, by definition, is everything. With this being the case, it can not posess form if there is nothing to contrast it with.

The reason you think the Totality exists within my head as a fantasy is because like I said above, you are confusing a conception of the Totality with the actual Totality.

[Jason]

The "Totality" is just a concept in your head. It is thus a form. "Formlessness" is also just a concept in your head, and also thus a form.

You're confusing the concept with the actual Totality.

I don't think that there is an actual formless Totality in the first place.

The truth is that reality is filled with forms - so obviously this "formless Totality" isn't about reality or truth, it's a fantasy in your head.

Reality contains forms, but reality as a whole can not posess form, because Ultimate Reality, by definition, is everything. With this being the case, it can not posess form if there is nothing to contrast it with.

Reality as a whole is the entire collection of all forms that exist within reality. That's why it's not formless - it's constituted of forms.

Reality as a whole is not a particular form, it is every particular form.

[Nick]

I don't think that there is an actual formless Totality in the first place.

Ok.

Reality as a whole is the entire collection of all forms that exist within reality. That's why it's not formless - it's constituted of forms.

Reality as a whole is not a particular form, it is every particular form.

Reality is more than just the collection of forms. It also contains things that do not posess form, e.g. logic and consciousness. It is also a collection of everything we have not and/or never will imagine. So when we define the Totality as: (everything which posesses form and everything that does not, everything imagined and unimagined, no begining and no end, not subject to time, i.e. it is literally everything, everywhen, and everywhere) there is nothing to contrast it with.

With that said, give me an example of a form that could theoretically exist if there were nothing aside from it.

[Jason]

Reality as a whole is the entire collection of all forms that exist within reality. That's why it's not formless - it's constituted of forms.

Reality as a whole is not a particular form, it is every particular form.

Reality is more than just the collection of forms.

You're defining "forms" differently to me then I think.

It also contains things that do not posess form, e.g. logic and consciousness.

By my definition they are forms too.

It is also a collection of everything we have not and/or never will imagine. So when we define the Totality as: (everything which posesses form and everything that does not, everything imagined and unimagined, no begining and no end, not subject to time, i.e. it is literally everything, everywhen, and everywhere)

I agree that that's what the Totality(reality in its entirety) is.

there is nothing to contrast it with.

Ok, but there are still contrasts existing between the constituent parts.

The problem I saw was in your claim that the Totality is "formless." To me that sounded like the forms/things/parts contained within the Totality somehow magically disappeared and what was left was a unity with no distinctions, no divisions, just one undivided thing lacking any internal forms/things/parts whatsoever. Maybe that's not how you view the Totality after all?