beyond the infinite

[jupiviv]

You can't make any ultimate assertions. Because any positive assertion always fall prey to logical consequences.

Are you making this assertion ultimately?

I'd say rather that conventionally water is just a mental construct an nothing else. This is the way of the non-affirming negation; nowhere in our Ultimate analysis of water do we ever find any water. However, that doesn't water ultimately nonexistent, right; it exists relatively when a perticular worldspace/perspective/conceptual realm is enacted.

Why wash a clear mirror? You will only make your reflection vague in it. Water is water if I perceive it to be water. It has no other existence other than what it seems to be. And wherever it may be, however it may appear, it is always contained in the infinite, as it cannot possibly be outside it.

[Nick]

Infinity relates to causality, not things.

All things are an expression of infinity, so they are necessarily related.

As reality is always expanding via the expansionary flow of time, there is not even a point where “what is” is “all that is”. There is no real totality, other than as a logical concept in which one falsely assumes effects are real-in-themselves and static.

You can’t sit there and tell everyone that any logical conception of the totality is based on false assumptions while simultaneously presenting a conception of the totality.

Fundamental Time (or whatever the base cause is) does not flow on a stop/start quantum basis, but is continuously causal without variation or change. Thus there is no point of time in which “newness” is not being created. It does cause variation, or quantumness, as effects, but it has no variation or duality within its own singular causal nature.

What’s the difference between “fundamental time” and regular time? What constitutes a base cause? This is all a load of horse shit. Are you even trying to make sense? Time is no more real than any other concept one can come up with. It’s just a measurement of change. It’s not that big of a deal.

When I say “reality is always expanding”, I mean that relativity is continuously increasing in complexity, via the addition of new time. As time flows, as time occurs, the relationship between the past and the new present, becomes greater – it is only this relativity that causes effects.

Of course this is all relative to you, the observer, so you’re not adding anything philosophically meaningful to this discussion by pushing your views on to other people.

Space and dimensions, are effects, not causes, and thus mislead us when conceptualising infinity. In reality there may be no “space”, the universe may have no size, no dimensions (in fact that is how it must be!).

Effects are causes and vice versa. Also, it doesn’t make any sense to say “in reality there may be this or that”. Things are exactly the way we see them. We can of course change the way we see and interpret things, but ultimately, no manner of sucking up empirical data is going to get you any closer to the truth.

All that exists is simply time of various ages - the older the time the lesser it's action is relative to the present - the creationary power of time is the same no matter the age, but the older that time is the more it's effect on the present is consumed by being relative to all the time that has occurred in the meantime.

Again this is all relative to the way you view things. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Our ability to observe relates entirely to the brain calculating time relativities. Ultimately calculating Time differences is the only fundamental way we can measure anything.

I don’t think you have the slightest idea what you just said here, and it has no connection to any scientific study I've ever herad of. But you basically said that anytime we measure something we are “fundamentally” measuring it. First off, if this were true, everyone would be doing this already so you would have no reason to be explaining this, second, this is completely false because there is no such thing as a fundamental measurement in the context of this discussion. Any measurement you make is relative to you, and you alone.

Take colours – they actually occur as a result of different speeds of light reaching our eyes. Our eyes transfer these speed differences into linear data streams using the same basic dots and dashes method as Morse code, but a million times more detailed. Via the various combinations of “short amount of time, long amount of time” it determines patterns within these time coding streams and names and memorises them as various “colours”.

This has nothing to do with anything being discussed here.

[Is.]

Are you making this assertion ultimately?

Nope. I am operating within a conceptual worldspace.

Water is water if I perceive it to be water. It has no other existence other than what it seems to be.

Right. That's why I thought it was redundant to claim that the water was contained within the Infinite; implying that water and the Infinite are two separate, discrete entities with an essential relationship. If the water is ultimately empty, how could something contain it?

[Jamesh]

Infinity relates to causality, not things.

All things are an expression of infinity, so they are necessarily related.

I don’t want to rehash points already made in this thread, but immediately one conceives of a thing, one creates a finite entity.

Infinity does not apply to things, other than in a causal sense. However, once one takes the causal perspective of a thing, then the thing in question is no longer what is being considered – it becomes divided into different A=A’s, which can be traced infinitely.

As reality is always expanding via the expansionary flow of time, there is not even a point where “what is” is “all that is”. There is no real totality, other than as a logical concept in which one falsely assumes effects are real-in-themselves and static.

You can’t sit there and tell everyone that any logical conception of the totality is based on false assumptions while simultaneously presenting a conception of the totality.

I’m just suggesting it is not right to think of infinity as any form of summing together of finiteness.

Fundamental Time (or whatever the base cause is) does not flow on a stop/start quantum basis, but is continuously causal without variation or change. Thus there is no point of time in which “newness” is not being created. It does cause variation, or quantumness, as effects, but it has no variation or duality within its own singular causal nature.

What’s the difference between “fundamental time” and regular time? What constitutes a base cause? This is all a load of horse shit. Are you even trying to make sense? Time is no more real than any other concept one can come up with. It’s just a measurement of change. It’s not that big of a deal.

I use the time concept merely as a pointer, as it fits best into what most people can imagine about infinity.

I separate fundamental time and regular time to try and avoid people thinking of my concept of time as a measurement of change, as regular time. Fundamental time is an infinite 4 dimensional action, regular time is a finite linear observational measurement of the effects of causality. The latter merely points to the underlying existence of the former. Causality can only occur over time - but it is not causality that creates time, as you assume because you view time as “regular time”, but it is that time is actually causality. If causality just created time as an effect, then over what time would causality first be able to manifest.

When I say “reality is always expanding”, I mean that relativity is continuously increasing in complexity, via the addition of new time. As time flows, as time occurs, the relationship between the past and the new present, becomes greater – it is only this relativity that causes effects.

Of course this is all relative to you, the observer, so you’re not adding anything philosophically meaningful to this discussion by pushing your views on to other people.

I harp on about this as it is my subject of most interest. Once you know the foundations, then you can properly build the most accurate logical assessments of reality.

Effects are causes and vice versa.

No, effects are not really causes. They are the observable outcomes of relative causes, but not causes in themselves. They are the patterns of causes, but not the underlying causality.

Also, it doesn’t make any sense to say “in reality there may be this or that”. Things are exactly the way we see them. We can of course change the way we see and interpret things, but ultimately, no manner of sucking up empirical data is going to get you any closer to the truth.

Things are not exactly the way we see them, though concepts of things are, as in A=A.

All that exists is simply time of various ages - the older the time the lesser it's action is relative to the present - the creationary power of time is the same no matter the age, but the older that time is the more it's effect on the present is consumed by being relative to all the time that has occurred in the meantime.

Again this is all relative to the way you view things. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

It is relevant to my argument that it is wrong to consider infinity as a totalisation of things. It is simply your dislike of me that makes you determine that what I am saying is not relevant.

Our ability to observe relates entirely to the brain calculating time relativities. Ultimately calculating Time differences is the only fundamental way we can measure anything.

I don’t think you have the slightest idea what you just said here, and it has no connection to any scientific study I've ever herad of.

Probably not, but then I take all scientific works with a grain of salt.

But you basically said that anytime we measure something we are “fundamentally” measuring it. First off, if this were true, everyone would be doing this already so you would have no reason to be explaining this, second, this is completely false because there is no such thing as a fundamental measurement in the context of this discussion. Any measurement you make is relative to you, and you alone.

Well ok then, just how does the brain determine differentiation at the most basic level?
What core form within nature contains the parameters for which calculations of differentiation can be measured against a consistent unchanging standard?

Lets imagine there are two colours only. Black and white. How does our brain determine which is which.

You will agree that light is providing the differentiation to our eyes which the brain then interprets and matches against its “naming memories” (as a baby, these names are not language based, but subconscious categorisation only). It knows via the process of naming and remembering that a certain pattern of data entering the brain is “Black” and another pattern is “White”. This data is received as differing electrical currents, lets just assume the mental code for black has 1,000 photons, while white has 10,000 photons, and the total current flow of any sight experience is determined by our eyes (our light to data converters). What is in focus will flow at a much faster rate than anything in one’s peripheral vision.

The question then becomes “over what period of time must these photons be counted in order to be white and not black”? The data stream is meaningless unless measured against a context. So therefore the brain uses time meters to count the photons per X period of time.

In order to count each photon, each photon passing through the counter, must give off part of itself, otherwise there would be no interaction between the counter and the photon, and it would not be recognised.

Photons are not a fundamental entity, they are rather complex effects actually compared to things in wave form, but they do give off wave radiation and this is what the counter uses to count the photons passing by. But even the radiation represents an effect of something even more fundamental. I’m just suggesting what is most fundamental of all, is Time.

[jupiviv]

Nope. I am operating within a conceptual worldspace.

Which is ultimate, or not? If it is not ultimate, your statement is nonsensical.

Right. That's why I thought it was redundant to claim that the water was contained within the Infinite; implying that water and the Infinite are two separate, discrete entities with an essential relationship. If the water is ultimately empty, how could something contain it?

It can't be said that water does not exist at all, because I consciously experience something as what I define to be "water." Nothing ultimately gives water the quality of being non-existent.

It is perfectly logical to think of empirical things as lying within the infinite, if your understanding is not deluded.

[Is.]

Which is ultimate, or not? If it is not ultimate, your statement is nonsensical.

Of course it's not nonsensical. It is perfectly valid on a relative, conventional level. Just like on the conventional level, it is more true that the planet earth is round rather than flat. However, that does not mean that ultimately the earth is round. But yet, it is still valid and effective and sensible within the worldspace(s) enacted.

It can't be said that water does not exist at all, because I consciously experience something as what I define to be "water." Nothing ultimately gives water the quality of being non-existent.

I have never said the water was utterly nonexistent, I simply said that when we perform an ultimate logical analysis on what you call "water", we can't find any. Because of this, we can not say that water is an "it" separate from something else, and therefore it would be nonsensical to assert that something can contain it. Just like it is ultimately nonsensical to say that my room contains space right now. Why? Because space is not an "it", it is a conceptual imputation.

[jupiviv]

Of course it's not nonsensical. It is perfectly valid on a relative, conventional level. Just like on the conventional level, it is more true that the planet earth is round rather than flat. However, that does not mean that ultimately the earth is round. But yet, it is still valid and effective and sensible within the worldspace(s) enacted.

So are you saying that we MAY make ultimate assertions, but at the same time we can't? You still don't make sense.

I have never said the water was utterly nonexistent, I simply said that when we perform an ultimate logical analysis on what you call "water", we can't find any. Because of this, we can not say that water is an "it" separate from something else, and therefore it would be nonsensical to assert that something can contain it.

The water does not have to separate from the Infinite to be water. Duality and non-duality both lie within the All.

The ultimate logical analysis of water would be that it is water, i.e, A=A.

[Is.]

So are you saying that we MAY make ultimate assertions, but at the same time we can't? You still don't make sense.

We can't make ultimate assertions. However, we can talk sensibly about the ultimate by way of non-affirming negations.

The ultimate logical analysis of water would be that it is water, i.e, A=A.

A=A breaks down in the Infinite. Where is your water, exactly?

[jupiviv]

We can't make ultimate assertions. However, we can talk sensibly about the ultimate by way of non-affirming negations.

You can't say, ultimately, that we can't make ultimate assertions. That is a logical contradiction.

A=A breaks down in the Infinite. Where is your water, exactly?

I've already answered "where" all things are.

[Is.]

You can't say, ultimately, that we can't make ultimate assertions.

As I've already said, I don't claim that to be an ultimate assertion. I agree with you that it would be nonsensical if I claimed that this were an ultimate assertion, because voidness is void. Hence, as I said below, all assertive language breaks down in the infinite. So, when I made the assertion, I made it within the three-dimensional matrix of conceptuality and relativity; the matrix in which all assertions and negations are made from various adresses.

I've already answered "where" all things are.

You said that they were simply part of your imagination.

"Water is water if I perceive it to be water. It has no other existence other than what it seems to be."

I inquire again, so how can something sensibly be said to contain something which is illusory like a reflection or a mirage?

[jupiviv]

As I've already said, I don't claim that to be an ultimate assertion.

If you don't claim that that is an ultimate assertion, then it is not an ultimate assertion, and hence can be falsified under certain circumstances. Therefore, your assertion that ultimate assertions cannot be made at all, is nonsensical. It is not possible for your assertion to hold true under some circumstances, and not for other circumstances. Ultimate assertions will always be ultimate, or never. It is not logically possible for ultimate assertions to never be possible.

You said that they were simply part of your imagination.

No, I didn't say that. I said that if water appears to me, then it is water.

I inquire again, so how can something sensibly be said to contain something which is illusory like a reflection or a mirage?

No matter what a thing appears to you as, it is always contained in the infinite.

[yana]

Wonderful discussion gentlemen! I am most pleased with your contributions.

[Is.]

Therefore, your assertion that ultimate assertions cannot be made at all, is nonsensical.

No, it is perfectly valid as a response to you, because you (as the "asserter") have initated and locked into a perticular conceptual worldspace or perspective. Because of this, I flow within this worldspace you've opened up, and within this framework your logic and rules are valid, and thus I can refute whatever you say using those same rules.

Until you agree that everything you've said is ultimately empty, then so is everything I say.

No, I didn't say that. I said that if water appears to me, then it is water.

And unless you subscribe to solipsism - which I presume you do not as you seem quite philosophically advanced - then it naturally follows that you said that water is as a mirage, or a reflection, or an illusion; it has no further substance or essence.

No matter what a thing appears to you as, it is always contained in the infinite.

If you want to say that mirages, reflections, and illusions are contained in the Infinite, sure. I am simply pointing out the pointlessness of this intellectual game.

[jupiviv]

No, it is perfectly valid as a response to you, because you (as the "asserter") have initated and locked into a perticular conceptual worldspace or perspective. Because of this, I flow within this worldspace you've opened up, and within this framework your logic and rules are valid, and thus I can refute whatever you say using those same rules.

So it is ultimately true that we can make no ultimate assertions only within this essentially non-ultimate "conceptual worldspace"?

And unless you subscribe to solipsism - which I presume you do not as you seem quite philosophically advanced - then it naturally follows that you said that water is as a mirage, or a reflection, or an illusion; it has no further substance or essence.

I didn't say anything anything about water being illusory or real, as those terms imply an inherent quality, which no finite thing(that appears) can have(as they lack inherent existence and non-existence.)

If you want to say that mirages, reflections, and illusions are contained in the Infinite, sure. I am simply pointing out the pointlessness of this intellectual game.

Illusions are contained within the infinite, since they could not be contained anywhere else. Why are you calling this an "intellectual game"?

[Is.]

So it is ultimately true that we can make no ultimate assertions only within this essentially non-ultimate "conceptual worldspace"?

No. When the conceptual worldspace you've opened up collapses, so do I. Hence, I make no ultimate assertions or negations; all I say arises dependently with what you're saying. And whatever arises dependently is empty.

I didn't say anything anything about water being illusory or real, as those terms imply an inherent quality, which no finite thing(that appears) can have(as they lack inherent existence and non-existence.)

If your water is capable of being contained by something else, doesn't that make it existent? How can something neither existent nor nonexistent possibly be contained?

Illusions are contained within the infinite, since they could not be contained anywhere else.

I reiterate, how could something without substance be contained? Surely you must agree with me that it is senseless to assert that the space of the room you're sitting in now is contained within that room?

Why are you calling this an "intellectual game"?

Because it serves no soteriological purpose, for you, or for others. It is merely mental masturbation.

[Ataraxia]

Take colours – they actually occur as a result of different speeds of light reaching our eyes. Our eyes transfer these speed differences into linear data streams using the same basic dots and dashes method as Morse code, but a million times more detailed. Via the various combinations of “short amount of time, long amount of time” it determines patterns within these time coding streams and names and memorises them as various “colours”.

In a sense everything is like that, right?....... "Data"

It is why I take the metaphysical proposition described by 'neutral monism' seriously.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This way the sensation of pain is as defining as any contemplation on suffering.

It may be as defining to you, but yet they are NOT one and same thing, by definition if you like. Are they?

Essentially they are. It's why I guess Genius has been defined somewhere here in the instructional section as "the infinite capacity for giving pain." :-)

… but I think we are imagining “the infinite” for one reason only; we have a slave mentality and can never imagine being actually free of this mentality, and keep creating God like substitutes to satisfy our own ego, and pretend, or lie to ourselves, that I have found the answer to the mother of all questions, and what a question it is… an egotistically self imagined and self imposed one.

Does this mean you'd found the mother answer: that it's all slave mentality and egotistical imagining? Or is it just an opinion to consider?

Nevertheless, it could still be just a reflection of eternity: fleeting shadows could be said to have by definition somewhat of a slave mentality and a wild "imagining"of what they think they are. So you might ask: how could a lie still form a truth?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The infinite can have no bounds yet it contains everything, by definition. A "container" must be able to contain - that's all.

Without having some bounds, any notion of containment seems pretty useless.

A finite thing(define as the same) can only contain(defined appropriately) finite things(defined as the same.)

All things are contained by definitions.

Without the bottle, the water would have been contained somewhere else, wherever it may be(the ground, the sky, vacuum etc.) Ultimately it is contained in the infinite.

As you say, it's always contained "somewhere else" which as such forms the finite, is the finite.

My consciousness is not present in everything, otherwise it wouldn't be consciousness. There are a lot of things that are not conscious - rocks, women, most men, etc.

But the experiences you're having are representing your consciousness of those very things. Therefore your consciousness is present in all your experiencing.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God separated the Spirit and the Earth."

[jupiviv]

Without having some bounds, any notion of containment seems pretty useless.

Why so?

All things are contained by definitions.

If there were no definitions at all, things would still be contained ultimately in the Totality.

As you say, it's always contained "somewhere else" which as such forms the finite, is the finite.

I have already established that a container does not need to have any bounds.

But the experiences you're having are representing your consciousness of those very things. Therefore your consciousness is present in all your experiencing.

I don't see how you are making that deduction. That my consciousness makes it possible for me to experience things does not mean that my consciousness is present in those things.

[jupiviv]

No. When the conceptual worldspace you've opened up collapses, so do I. Hence, I make no ultimate assertions or negations; all I say arises dependently with what you're saying. And whatever arises dependently is empty.

Then your statement about there being no ultimate assertions is meaningless, because it cannot possibly hold true after this "worldspace" collapses.

If your water is capable of being contained by something else, doesn't that make it existent? How can something neither existent nor nonexistent possibly be contained?

I do not mean "contain" in the ordinary sense when I talk of something being contained within the Infinite.

I reiterate, how could something without substance be contained? Surely you must agree with me that it is senseless to assert that the space of the room you're sitting in now is contained within that room?

Nothing can be without substance. They just don't inherently possess the quality of being made of something(substance.)

Because it serves no soteriological purpose, for you, or for others. It is merely mental masturbation.

I don't think so. This discussion does establish something. "Let him who have ears hear."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Without having some bounds, any notion of containment seems pretty useless.

Why so?

It replaces all the usual definitions and uses of the concept of "containment" with something that is actually the opposite. Without limitation how could something be held?

One could argue that the same happens with defining the infinite as "within the finite" but if you look carefully it's not opposing: by being within the finite it doesn't equal the finite, especially when the finality lies in the containing aspect, not in the content itself.

If there were no definitions at all, things would still be contained ultimately in the Totality.

You mean if there where no definitions at all expect this special one you like to keep around.

That my consciousness makes it possible for me to experience things does not mean that my consciousness is present in those things.

Would you accept those things being present inside your consciousness then? And if they appear to be, what are those things made of? What do they contain?

[jupiviv]

It replaces all the usual definitions and uses of the concept of "containment" with something that is actually the opposite.

A container is that which contains something. There is no specification about whether it must itself be bounded or not.

Without limitation how could something be held?

Figure it out.

One could argue that the same happens with defining the infinite as "within the finite" but if you look carefully it's not opposing: by being within the finite it doesn't equal the finite, especially when the finality lies in the containing aspect, not in the content itself.

It definitely does not equal the finite....it becomes LESS than the finite, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

You mean if there where no definitions at all expect this special one you like to keep around.

No, I meant if there were no definitions at all - it was a hypothesis.

Would you accept those things being present inside your consciousness then? And if they appear to be, what are those things made of? What do they contain?

They contain whatever they appear to me to contain.

[Is.]

Then your statement about there being no ultimate assertions is meaningless, because it cannot possibly hold true after this "worldspace" collapses.

If you believe that this is so, then your understanding is evidently inferior. The statements "You shall not kill any humans regardless of sex, race, beliefs or creed", and "Electrons revolve around a nucleus consisting of neutrons and protons" for example are not inherently true, they are only conventionally true within the dynamic sphere of our rational, modernist conceptual worldspace here on the planet. Now, according to your logic, it follows that these statements are then utterly meaningless. Of course this is not so, they are 100% valid within our worldspace, without for that reason being ultimate truths.

I do not mean "contain" in the ordinary sense when I talk of something being contained within the Infinite.

Ok?

Nothing can be without substance. They just don't inherently possess the quality of being made of something(substance.)

In what way can nothing be without substance? Where is the - absolute or relative - substance of your supposedly contained water?

I don't think so.

Ok.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A container is that which contains something. There is no specification about whether it must itself be bounded or not.

A definition defines something but there's nothing "there" outside or inside that definition, nothing "in itself". A definition is an example of a container, like any thing is an example of containment. When you go looking inside of it emptiness is all you'd find. Also called sometimes: "empty emptiness".

Without limitation how could something be held?

Figure it out.

Right! The moment I've "figured it out" though I'm limiting it again! When it's grasped it disappears, when understood it evaporates. Literally, ultimately, inevitably! There's nothing out there "containing" us, like some God holding the whole wide World in His Hands! Powerful beings might though but they'd have their own gods.

It definitely does not equal the finite....it becomes LESS than the finite, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

What makes you think it's LESS because it's contained? That only applies to comparing two finite things, using equal measurement systems even. An apple is not less than the containing fruit basket in some existential, general sense.

No, I meant if there were no definitions at all - it was a hypothesis.

But you allow for the infinite container to still exist. You just try to make it into a non-defined entity of some kind. You want it to exist and yet not exist. With that very mental act limitations and distortions start jumping in place.

They [things inside consciousness] contain whatever they appear to me to contain.

So you say that whatever appears to you contains more appearances. Then I ask of course: what constitutes these new appearances, where do they originate from, what are their causes? If your answer is that each of these appearances contain whatever appears again, you'd get infinite appearances!

[Ataraxia]

A container is that which contains something. There is no specification about whether it must itself be bounded or not.

A definition defines something but there's nothing "there" outside or inside that definition, nothing "in itself".

Well put.