Navigating Perpetual Existence

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Serendipper
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Serendipper » Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:27 pm

Russell Parr wrote:Hey Serendipper,
Serendipper wrote:You are truly insightful! (not just this post.)
Thanks for the compliment, but I'll pass the credit to those that I echo; the founders of the forum and the giants whose shoulders they stand upon.
True enough and I suggest that you find an old shirt because here I come with a ladder ;)
But I don't believe in infinity. We can say our minds are unable to comprehend the greatness of the universe without invoking concepts such as infinity. I think it's an overkill to make your point.

Infinity is defined as one-bigger than anything that exists, therefore it doesn't exist. Infinity will always be one-bigger and the full definition of it can't be realized until you leave the realm of existence and enter into the mental construct that is mathematics.
I'm glad you bring this up. This thread is a great example of how easy it is to default to mathematical/scientific conceptualizations of infinity these days. I'm reminded of this video as an example.
I have watched that video before and recommend it to anyone reading along.

I agree with your observation of how easy it is to default to scientific conceptualizations because we are taught to perceive the world through those lenses and have no other faculty for such perception. That is, we are compelled to form "tools" in order to observe reality; the error is assuming that the tools are "real". We didn't fall from the evolutionary tree and stub our toe on mathematics, but we invented it as a way to understand the world. I think that realization opens the door to further discovery.
My expression of the Infinite is philosophical. When referring to the Infinite I am not referring to quantifications, but simply boundlessness, or limitlessness. By eternal causation, I'm not saying that causal events stem back towards an infinite past, but that whatever happens in reality, whether in the past or future, whether static or active, is bound by causality.
If events are bound by causality, then doesn't that necessitate an infinite chain of events because each event must have a cause and, without infinity, we're left with one event that had no cause?

Moreover, boundlessness and limitlessness imply infinite because infinity is the only thing that has no limit. I can think of nothing in the universe which has no limit: Speed, temperature, mass all have limits. Infinite mass means infinite density which means zero volume which means it doesn't occupy space and therefore doesn't exist. Everything in the universe seems to have a limit and there seems to be no basis for suspicion of limitless anything. Tangential to the conversation, this video comes to mind, which is quite long, but very interesting concerning the pondering of what happens at theoretical limits to temperature and time.
Infinite causality necessitates the formation of every possible thing, regardless of probability. Not only that, but such eventualities would occur an infinite amount of times. It's really ridiculous. In other words, you and I have had this conversation before... and we've had it an infinite amount of times already (and I still can't remember what you said :p ).
Every moment and scenario is unique, despite the appearance of similarities. Even if an "exact" scenario occurs twice, they still aren't identical by way of being separate from each other. Other than that, infinite possibilities mean that even similarities are not necessary.
So you're saying that even though this universe formed once, it's unique and may never form again, even in infinite causality? You know, I did think of that and I'm less sure of my argument against it. It seems to me (which may be a lacking on my part) that if something happened once, then it's evidence that it has a probability of happening. By observation, this universe happened; therefore, in infinite causality, it's destined to happen infinite times. But I see your point nonetheless, I think.

The reason I say "I think" is that the alternate interpretation of what you said is that identical universes wouldn't be identical because they occur at different locations in the chain of causality. If that's what you meant to convey, then I don't understand the reason for making that assertion. If one hydrogen atom was formed before another, then how are they not identical? Unless one is somehow dependent upon the other. If H2 atom cannot exist until H1 atom has been formed, then H2 is dependent on H1 and is therefore unique in that regard. That would seem to imply that no identicalities could ever exist because it would be circular dependency. I think, rather than resorting to strict-dependency, that it's merely the probability of H2 that is dependent on the existence of H1. So that the probability of this universe forming is affected by the existence of this universe in the past. Unless that probability is zero, infinite causality guarantees its infinite-happening. Any probability above zero happens with certainty. Infinite causality is digital: Yes it will happen infinite times or No it will never happen.

x/0 = infinity because zero (aka nothing) is the only thing there can be infinite amount of. In infinite time, something either happens infinite times, or zero times. Infinity is tied to zero.

Good reading on the subject of infinity, if you're interested.
I can't recall what you've told me an infinite amount of times, but I can speculate on what you might ask as a consequence to my claim, which is: How did the first "effect" come into existence with no "cause"? Because, without infinity, that's the inevitable question. My answer to that is: God. There must be one. That's the only rational conclusion in lieu of the ridiculous.
I consider any speculation of a God that is separate and invisible to us as pointless. To believe God to be anything other than Nature itself, of which we and everything are a part of, is likely nothing more than a feeble attempt to alleviate the unavoidable uncertainties that come with being inherently finite observers of reality.
I consider the consideration of a God to be pointless as a leap to a conclusion. Isn't it? It seems like you're claiming, "We can't understand, so there's no point in trying." So why does this site exist? What are we doing?

My claim about God is merely this: It's the cause for the first cause. It's the sapience that brought order and wrote the laws that govern everything.

Consider negative entropy:

In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars during the upcoming space mission. When thinking about this problem, Lovelock wondered “how can we be sure that Martian life, if any, will reveal itself to tests based on Earth’s lifestyle?” To Lovelock, the basic question was “What is life, and how should it be recognized?” When speaking about this issue with some of his colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he was asked what he would do to look for life on Mars. To this, Lovelock replied: I’d look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a general characteristic of life.

Thus, according to Lovelock, to find signs of life, one must look for a “reduction or a reversal of entropy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_a ... ve_entropy


I submit that the evidence of life (in this case, God) are the laws of the universe. The laws themselves can be considered a reduction in the entropy that should otherwise be gibberish.

"Nature" as a "God" exists as an entropy-balancing aspect of the universe that is the duality of order and disorder. Good and evil is order and disorder... "and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." It seems consistent. Order implies sapience, which is good; disorder implies folly, which is bad. The ordering-force is intelligent and alive; the disordering-force is dumb and dead like a rock.
The "ultimate freewill" could not be dependent on anything, or it wouldn't be free. Freewill couldn't be determined by causality or it would merely be another domino in the chain. Freewill is distinct from causality and the cause of causality could only be such a thing that, itself, could have no external cause.
"Free will" is just a label that describes a particular causal event. It is called free because we experience it to be free. Of course, this is quite tricky to come to terms with. But consider how easy it is to perceive that a robot, no matter how complex it's programming, only gives off an illusion of free will. It's only harder to categorize our own will as dependent because normal egotistical consciousness is conditioned to adhere to the idea of self freedom.

That isn't to say that such an idea isn't useful, or necessary, which it certainly is. But it isn't ultimate. It's all a matter of perspective: it's free because we experience it to be so, and it isn't free because causal determinism is fundamental and absolute.
I'm sorry. I think I failed to make a distinction. I am asserting that God is the ultimate freewill and that we have a limited version... a limited will.

Our will is free to the extent that matter requires our observation to have definite form. If our will were predictable (as a robot would be), there would be no point in matter waiting around for our observation. If our will is a causal event and determined, matter may as well have definite form regardless if we observe it.

In other words, a robot, no matter how complex, will never be able to collapse the wave function. Consciousness is not composed of complexity of dominoes or switches. Consciousness is its own thing, independent from causality.

So my line of reasoning is to negate infinite causality which then requires a starting point, which then requires something independent from causality to be the first cause, which then requires me to define a God, which is the ultimate freewill, which can have no external cause by definition. As example or perhaps analogy, I use the wave-like nature of matter paired with our necessitated observation to argue that our will is at least somewhat free from determinism, which lends credence to the suspicion that an entity with ultimate freewill could exist. Further evidence is found in the existence of the laws of the universe.

It doesn't yet seem pointless for me to ponder these things. How do you see it differently?

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Russell Parr » Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:18 am

Serendipper wrote:True enough and I suggest that you find an old shirt because here I come with a ladder ;)
Come on up! There's plenty of room :)
I'm glad you bring this up. This thread is a great example of how easy it is to default to mathematical/scientific conceptualizations of infinity these days. I'm reminded of this video as an example.
I have watched that video before and recommend it to anyone reading along.

I agree with your observation of how easy it is to default to scientific conceptualizations because we are taught to perceive the world through those lenses and have no other faculty for such perception. That is, we are compelled to form "tools" in order to observe reality; the error is assuming that the tools are "real". We didn't fall from the evolutionary tree and stub our toe on mathematics, but we invented it as a way to understand the world. I think that realization opens the door to further discovery.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that math presents itself to us in the same moment that we invent it. It is quite real in the sense that it unquestionably works, because it is based on logic, and logic is the means by which we understand and express absolute truths. However, math is limited in what it can tell us about reality, as it both implies and relies on limitations, just as all of empiricism.
My expression of the Infinite is philosophical. When referring to the Infinite I am not referring to quantifications, but simply boundlessness, or limitlessness. By eternal causation, I'm not saying that causal events stem back towards an infinite past, but that whatever happens in reality, whether in the past or future, whether static or active, is bound by causality.
If events are bound by causality, then doesn't that necessitate an infinite chain of events because each event must have a cause and, without infinity, we're left with one event that had no cause?

Moreover, boundlessness and limitlessness imply infinite because infinity is the only thing that has no limit. I can think of nothing in the universe which has no limit: Speed, temperature, mass all have limits. Infinite mass means infinite density which means zero volume which means it doesn't occupy space and therefore doesn't exist. Everything in the universe seems to have a limit and there seems to be no basis for suspicion of limitless anything. Tangential to the conversation, this video comes to mind, which is quite long, but very interesting concerning the pondering of what happens at theoretical limits to temperature and time.
Thanks for the link, I'll have to check that out sometime.

What you express here makes sense, but as you can see it invariably leads us nowhere because there is an effort to restrain infinity into a framework that fits within empirical formulations. It is endless and thus ridiculous to try to do so, as you had implied in a previous post. What we're missing is a better understanding of the nature of existence. More on this below.
Every moment and scenario is unique, despite the appearance of similarities. Even if an "exact" scenario occurs twice, they still aren't identical by way of being separate from each other. Other than that, infinite possibilities mean that even similarities are not necessary.
So you're saying that even though this universe formed once, it's unique and may never form again, even in infinite causality? You know, I did think of that and I'm less sure of my argument against it. It seems to me (which may be a lacking on my part) that if something happened once, then it's evidence that it has a probability of happening. By observation, this universe happened; therefore, in infinite causality, it's destined to happen infinite times. But I see your point nonetheless, I think.

The reason I say "I think" is that the alternate interpretation of what you said is that identical universes wouldn't be identical because they occur at different locations in the chain of causality. If that's what you meant to convey, then I don't understand the reason for making that assertion. If one hydrogen atom was formed before another, then how are they not identical? Unless one is somehow dependent upon the other. If H2 atom cannot exist until H1 atom has been formed, then H2 is dependent on H1 and is therefore unique in that regard. That would seem to imply that no identicalities could ever exist because it would be circular dependency. I think, rather than resorting to strict-dependency, that it's merely the probability of H2 that is dependent on the existence of H1. So that the probability of this universe forming is affected by the existence of this universe in the past. Unless that probability is zero, infinite causality guarantees its infinite-happening. Any probability above zero happens with certainty. Infinite causality is digital: Yes it will happen infinite times or No it will never happen.

x/0 = infinity because zero (aka nothing) is the only thing there can be infinite amount of. In infinite time, something either happens infinite times, or zero times. Infinity is tied to zero.

Good reading on the subject of infinity, if you're interested.
Thanks for the link, and good read. To respond to this bit:
There are no building blocks for infinity. It can't be defined in terms of the natural universe because infinity doesn't exist in physics. We can build seemingly close approximations but they repeatedly trick us because they don't have the properties we expect. Thompson's lamp can't really be half on and half off. Achilles in Zeno's Paradoxes can't really move at infinitesimally small distances. We can't really add one forever and ever. Infinity just doesn't exist in the natural world and so all of our approximations fail.
The Infinite both contains and transcends the natural world (i.e. the empirical realms). This is why it does not exist. Existence, or the declaration of existence, relies on measurement. Infinity, of course, cannot be measured.

You see, existence is a dualistic concept that only works within the frameworks of consciousness, which is a "dualizing" object or process, so to speak. We cannot speak of existence without implying a "something other than." Therefore, since the Infinite (or Ultimate Reality) resides both within and beyond consciousness, "existence" cannot apply to it.
I consider any speculation of a God that is separate and invisible to us as pointless. To believe God to be anything other than Nature itself, of which we and everything are a part of, is likely nothing more than a feeble attempt to alleviate the unavoidable uncertainties that come with being inherently finite observers of reality.
I consider the consideration of a God to be pointless as a leap to a conclusion. Isn't it? It seems like you're claiming, "We can't understand, so there's no point in trying." So why does this site exist? What are we doing?

My claim about God is merely this: It's the cause for the first cause. It's the sapience that brought order and wrote the laws that govern everything.

Consider negative entropy:

In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars during the upcoming space mission. When thinking about this problem, Lovelock wondered “how can we be sure that Martian life, if any, will reveal itself to tests based on Earth’s lifestyle?” To Lovelock, the basic question was “What is life, and how should it be recognized?” When speaking about this issue with some of his colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he was asked what he would do to look for life on Mars. To this, Lovelock replied: I’d look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a general characteristic of life.

Thus, according to Lovelock, to find signs of life, one must look for a “reduction or a reversal of entropy.”


I submit that the evidence of life (in this case, God) are the laws of the universe. The laws themselves can be considered a reduction in the entropy that should otherwise be gibberish.

"Nature" as a "God" exists as an entropy-balancing aspect of the universe that is the duality of order and disorder. Good and evil is order and disorder... "and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." It seems consistent. Order implies sapience, which is good; disorder implies folly, which is bad. The ordering-force is intelligent and alive; the disordering-force is dumb and dead like a rock.
There can be no first cause, for all things have causes. If God is a self existing entity, and therefore a thing, then He too must be caused. Furthermore, all actions are reliant on causality to pre-exist as a fundamental aspect of reality in order to occur. Therefore a God-entity would necessarily rely on the ever-present principle of causality in order to function.

Since you brought up life, I'd like to bring up something Kevin Solway wrote about in Poison for the Heart. Although it's not totally relevant to your point, it should help you see where I'm coming from. It's called "Did we begin?", the first passage under Cause and Effect.
"Free will" is just a label that describes a particular causal event. It is called free because we experience it to be free. Of course, this is quite tricky to come to terms with. But consider how easy it is to perceive that a robot, no matter how complex it's programming, only gives off an illusion of free will. It's only harder to categorize our own will as dependent because normal egotistical consciousness is conditioned to adhere to the idea of self freedom.

That isn't to say that such an idea isn't useful, or necessary, which it certainly is. But it isn't ultimate. It's all a matter of perspective: it's free because we experience it to be so, and it isn't free because causal determinism is fundamental and absolute.
I'm sorry. I think I failed to make a distinction. I am asserting that God is the ultimate freewill and that we have a limited version... a limited will.

Our will is free to the extent that matter requires our observation to have definite form. If our will were predictable (as a robot would be), there would be no point in matter waiting around for our observation. If our will is a causal event and determined, matter may as well have definite form regardless if we observe it.

In other words, a robot, no matter how complex, will never be able to collapse the wave function. Consciousness is not composed of complexity of dominoes or switches. Consciousness is its own thing, independent from causality.

So my line of reasoning is to negate infinite causality which then requires a starting point, which then requires something independent from causality to be the first cause, which then requires me to define a God, which is the ultimate freewill, which can have no external cause by definition. As example or perhaps analogy, I use the wave-like nature of matter paired with our necessitated observation to argue that our will is at least somewhat free from determinism, which lends credence to the suspicion that an entity with ultimate freewill could exist. Further evidence is found in the existence of the laws of the universe.

It doesn't yet seem pointless for me to ponder these things. How do you see it differently?
Yes, I understand your distinction. I only disregarded addressing it point by point in order to save time. Forgive me if I come off as brash.

It is pointless to me because I understand the source of all things to be infinite causality. From this there is no further to go, no better way to understand the ultimate source. To reiterate, even if there exists a source from which the physical universe as we know it originated, it too would be reliant on causality to function and exist.

The only thing that could be said to be causeless is the Totality (this universe and all possible universes for all times). But this is because it is synonymous with infinite causality. Which then negates the accuracy to refer to it as a "thing". And around we go!

Serendipper
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Serendipper » Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:16 pm

Russell Parr wrote:
Serendipper wrote:True enough and I suggest that you find an old shirt because here I come with a ladder ;)
Come on up! There's plenty of room :)
Infinitely much, I imagine :)
I'm glad you bring this up. This thread is a great example of how easy it is to default to mathematical/scientific conceptualizations of infinity these days. I'm reminded of this video as an example.
I have watched that video before and recommend it to anyone reading along.

I agree with your observation of how easy it is to default to scientific conceptualizations because we are taught to perceive the world through those lenses and have no other faculty for such perception. That is, we are compelled to form "tools" in order to observe reality; the error is assuming that the tools are "real". We didn't fall from the evolutionary tree and stub our toe on mathematics, but we invented it as a way to understand the world. I think that realization opens the door to further discovery.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that math presents itself to us in the same moment that we invent it. It is quite real in the sense that it unquestionably works, because it is based on logic, and logic is the means by which we understand and express absolute truths. However, math is limited in what it can tell us about reality, as it both implies and relies on limitations, just as all of empiricism.
True that math presents itself to us in the moment we invent it, but what I was meaning to show is that it's something we invented rather than being invented by the thing that we're trying to discover (reality). We can pick up a rock and say the rock is real, but math is invented by us and can't be defaultly proclaimed as representative of reality.

I questioned math for the first time while trying to make sense of the popular problem of what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object. Surely there is an answer, but math can't describe it. An unmovable object is merely an object with infinite mass at rest and an unstoppable force is one with infinite momentum (infinite mass in motion); neither of which can occupy space nor exist in reality. So the answer to the question is the answer to: what happens when something that doesn't exist meets something that doesn't exist? And that is: "nothing happens."

But math falls on its face when describing the density of mass that has no volume because the function y=1/x never crosses the y-axis, though reality tells me that it should. It would make more sense to me if the graph paper were rolled and the y-axis connected then the function would be continuous, but at what y-value would that be?

So, to me, it almost seem opposite from the realization that math is limited while the universe is unlimited. I suspect it's the universe that has limits while the concept of infinity only exists in unlimited math. If there is no infinity, then there are no straight lines in a euclidean sense because the extents would terminate at infinity. Cartesian coordinates aren't reflective of reality (hence string theory, I guess).
My expression of the Infinite is philosophical. When referring to the Infinite I am not referring to quantifications, but simply boundlessness, or limitlessness. By eternal causation, I'm not saying that causal events stem back towards an infinite past, but that whatever happens in reality, whether in the past or future, whether static or active, is bound by causality.
If events are bound by causality, then doesn't that necessitate an infinite chain of events because each event must have a cause and, without infinity, we're left with one event that had no cause?

Moreover, boundlessness and limitlessness imply infinite because infinity is the only thing that has no limit. I can think of nothing in the universe which has no limit: Speed, temperature, mass all have limits. Infinite mass means infinite density which means zero volume which means it doesn't occupy space and therefore doesn't exist. Everything in the universe seems to have a limit and there seems to be no basis for suspicion of limitless anything. Tangential to the conversation, this video comes to mind, which is quite long, but very interesting concerning the pondering of what happens at theoretical limits to temperature and time.
Thanks for the link, I'll have to check that out sometime.

What you express here makes sense, but as you can see it invariably leads us nowhere because there is an effort to restrain infinity into a framework that fits within empirical formulations. It is endless and thus ridiculous to try to do so, as you had implied in a previous post. What we're missing is a better understanding of the nature of existence. More on this below.
I think the thing that is missing is the exclusion of infinity from our thinking. Every philosopher (seemingly) strives to find a solution using infinity and it always leads to the same deadend: "Our finite minds can't comprehend the infinite... so let's forget this and go fishing."

Birds see in quad-chrome, as opposed to our trichromatic vision, so they see more reality than we do; but to say that we don't see it all doesn't demand an infinite reality.
Every moment and scenario is unique, despite the appearance of similarities. Even if an "exact" scenario occurs twice, they still aren't identical by way of being separate from each other. Other than that, infinite possibilities mean that even similarities are not necessary.
So you're saying that even though this universe formed once, it's unique and may never form again, even in infinite causality? You know, I did think of that and I'm less sure of my argument against it. It seems to me (which may be a lacking on my part) that if something happened once, then it's evidence that it has a probability of happening. By observation, this universe happened; therefore, in infinite causality, it's destined to happen infinite times. But I see your point nonetheless, I think.

The reason I say "I think" is that the alternate interpretation of what you said is that identical universes wouldn't be identical because they occur at different locations in the chain of causality. If that's what you meant to convey, then I don't understand the reason for making that assertion. If one hydrogen atom was formed before another, then how are they not identical? Unless one is somehow dependent upon the other. If H2 atom cannot exist until H1 atom has been formed, then H2 is dependent on H1 and is therefore unique in that regard. That would seem to imply that no identicalities could ever exist because it would be circular dependency. I think, rather than resorting to strict-dependency, that it's merely the probability of H2 that is dependent on the existence of H1. So that the probability of this universe forming is affected by the existence of this universe in the past. Unless that probability is zero, infinite causality guarantees its infinite-happening. Any probability above zero happens with certainty. Infinite causality is digital: Yes it will happen infinite times or No it will never happen.

x/0 = infinity because zero (aka nothing) is the only thing there can be infinite amount of. In infinite time, something either happens infinite times, or zero times. Infinity is tied to zero.

Good reading on the subject of infinity, if you're interested.
Thanks for the link, and good read. To respond to this bit:
There are no building blocks for infinity. It can't be defined in terms of the natural universe because infinity doesn't exist in physics. We can build seemingly close approximations but they repeatedly trick us because they don't have the properties we expect. Thompson's lamp can't really be half on and half off. Achilles in Zeno's Paradoxes can't really move at infinitesimally small distances. We can't really add one forever and ever. Infinity just doesn't exist in the natural world and so all of our approximations fail.
The Infinite both contains and transcends the natural world (i.e. the empirical realms). This is why it does not exist. Existence, or the declaration of existence, relies on measurement. Infinity, of course, cannot be measured.
I don't think the infinite can contain the natural world because, if it did, the natural world would have no coordinates and no definite place. Infinity can't be graduated. However, what is infinite is nothing and nothing can contain something, but that something cannot be infinite or it would leave no place for the nothing. Duality insists on a finite "something".
You see, existence is a dualistic concept that only works within the frameworks of consciousness, which is a "dualizing" object or process, so to speak. We cannot speak of existence without implying a "something other than." Therefore, since the Infinite (or Ultimate Reality) resides both within and beyond consciousness, "existence" cannot apply to it.
I can't see it... How can something exist where "existence" doesn't apply to it? If you're saying something exists outside of existence then it seems you're graduating existence into sets of existence.

Everything is dualistic. I have no example to form a basis for belief otherwise. The way something comes from nothing is by dualism. Opposites cancel and leave nothing. There are some particles that pop into existence as opposite pairs and then quickly annihilate each other (neutrinos? I forgot, but could google it). So, the way to create something from nothing is to divide it into opposite pairs, however that is accomplished.
I consider any speculation of a God that is separate and invisible to us as pointless. To believe God to be anything other than Nature itself, of which we and everything are a part of, is likely nothing more than a feeble attempt to alleviate the unavoidable uncertainties that come with being inherently finite observers of reality.
I consider the consideration of a God to be pointless as a leap to a conclusion. Isn't it? It seems like you're claiming, "We can't understand, so there's no point in trying." So why does this site exist? What are we doing?

My claim about God is merely this: It's the cause for the first cause. It's the sapience that brought order and wrote the laws that govern everything.

Consider negative entropy:

In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars during the upcoming space mission. When thinking about this problem, Lovelock wondered “how can we be sure that Martian life, if any, will reveal itself to tests based on Earth’s lifestyle?” To Lovelock, the basic question was “What is life, and how should it be recognized?” When speaking about this issue with some of his colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he was asked what he would do to look for life on Mars. To this, Lovelock replied: I’d look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a general characteristic of life.

Thus, according to Lovelock, to find signs of life, one must look for a “reduction or a reversal of entropy.”


I submit that the evidence of life (in this case, God) are the laws of the universe. The laws themselves can be considered a reduction in the entropy that should otherwise be gibberish.

"Nature" as a "God" exists as an entropy-balancing aspect of the universe that is the duality of order and disorder. Good and evil is order and disorder... "and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." It seems consistent. Order implies sapience, which is good; disorder implies folly, which is bad. The ordering-force is intelligent and alive; the disordering-force is dumb and dead like a rock.
There can be no first cause, for all things have causes. If God is a self existing entity, and therefore a thing, then He too must be caused. Furthermore, all actions are reliant on causality to pre-exist as a fundamental aspect of reality in order to occur. Therefore a God-entity would necessarily rely on the ever-present principle of causality in order to function.
Why insist everything have a cause after claiming existence doesn't apply to Ultimate Reality?

"If God is a self existing entity, and therefore a thing, then He too must be caused." Here I propose circular causation... God caused himself. It's no less silly than supposing God has existed infinitely-long. In fact, it seems the same thing. If Nature has existed infinitely-long, then there is no cause for its existence since it's always existed and you may as well say it caused itself.

Consciousness is not a thing that depends on causality; it's independent from causality. The cause of consciousness is circular. What causes you to wake up? You do. You cause your own awakening and therefore cause yourself. So in pondering what caused existence, a freewill consciousness can be the only answer because it's the only thing which can have no cause other than itself.
Since you brought up life, I'd like to bring up something Kevin Solway wrote about in Poison for the Heart. Although it's not totally relevant to your point, it should help you see where I'm coming from. It's called "Did we begin?", the first passage under Cause and Effect.
What defines life is order. So on the question of when life begins just answer when does order first assert itself. The egg is ordered, though unfertilized, and it became that way by virtue of the mother who came from an egg and so on until we reach the original life which is God. There is no interruption in the chain where one could say "It's not alive, so let's kill it" because it's all life, all the way through time. The only question is to what extent is the life conscious and consciousness depends on modes of perception and then having awareness of perception you build your consciousness yourself into a sapience. Awareness and perception are gifts and talents, but sapience you construct on you own. It shouldn't be a question of when life begins, but a question of when enlightenment begins. When are you, you?
"Free will" is just a label that describes a particular causal event. It is called free because we experience it to be free. Of course, this is quite tricky to come to terms with. But consider how easy it is to perceive that a robot, no matter how complex it's programming, only gives off an illusion of free will. It's only harder to categorize our own will as dependent because normal egotistical consciousness is conditioned to adhere to the idea of self freedom.

That isn't to say that such an idea isn't useful, or necessary, which it certainly is. But it isn't ultimate. It's all a matter of perspective: it's free because we experience it to be so, and it isn't free because causal determinism is fundamental and absolute.
I'm sorry. I think I failed to make a distinction. I am asserting that God is the ultimate freewill and that we have a limited version... a limited will.

Our will is free to the extent that matter requires our observation to have definite form. If our will were predictable (as a robot would be), there would be no point in matter waiting around for our observation. If our will is a causal event and determined, matter may as well have definite form regardless if we observe it.

In other words, a robot, no matter how complex, will never be able to collapse the wave function. Consciousness is not composed of complexity of dominoes or switches. Consciousness is its own thing, independent from causality.

So my line of reasoning is to negate infinite causality which then requires a starting point, which then requires something independent from causality to be the first cause, which then requires me to define a God, which is the ultimate freewill, which can have no external cause by definition. As example or perhaps analogy, I use the wave-like nature of matter paired with our necessitated observation to argue that our will is at least somewhat free from determinism, which lends credence to the suspicion that an entity with ultimate freewill could exist. Further evidence is found in the existence of the laws of the universe.

It doesn't yet seem pointless for me to ponder these things. How do you see it differently?
Yes, I understand your distinction. I only disregarded addressing it point by point in order to save time. Forgive me if I come off as brash.

Oh no, you're cool. I think you articulate your empathy very well. It's a little harder for me because I'm more systematic than literary, which may give my conversation a tone that I didn't mean, but I'm trying.
It is pointless to me because I understand the source of all things to be infinite causality. From this there is no further to go, no better way to understand the ultimate source. To reiterate, even if there exists a source from which the physical universe as we know it originated, it too would be reliant on causality to function and exist.

The only thing that could be said to be causeless is the Totality (this universe and all possible universes for all times). But this is because it is synonymous with infinite causality. Which then negates the accuracy to refer to it as a "thing". And around we go!
It seems like you've come to the same conclusion I have... that the totality of infinite causality is the same as self-causation. My objection is that what is dumb cannot produce order. So, saying some dumb process of totality has always existed and exists of its own virtue is self-contradictory. However, saying a sapient process has always existed and exists of its own volition seems more reasonable.

Do you think we should split this into more manageable chunks? Keeping track of the quote tags is becoming a mental exercise of its own. If so, I'll let you do it since I'm not practiced in the customs of this community.

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Russell Parr » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:24 pm

Serendipper wrote:Infinitely much, I imagine :)
Indeed. You're on the verge, my friend. If only you can dismantle this particular blockage...

Fair warning, I get a bit repetitive in this post, in effort to emphasis my point.
True that math presents itself to us in the moment we invent it, but what I was meaning to show is that it's something we invented rather than being invented by the thing that we're trying to discover (reality). We can pick up a rock and say the rock is real, but math is invented by us and can't be defaultly proclaimed as representative of reality.
Ultimately, the rock is no more real than the math/science we use to characterize various aspects of the rock. Both are equally dependent on the demarcations made by consciousness.
So, to me, it almost seem opposite from the realization that math is limited while the universe is unlimited. I suspect it's the universe that has limits while the concept of infinity only exists in unlimited math. If there is no infinity, then there are no straight lines in a euclidean sense because the extents would terminate at infinity. Cartesian coordinates aren't reflective of reality (hence string theory, I guess).
You're still considering the universe within an empirical framework. Consciousness converts the Infinite into finites, thus giving us the reality of things. But beyond and without consciousness, the limitations are removed. Even within consciousness, there is the Infinite, but we cannot perceive it because that directly contradicts and opposes the function of conscious perception. In a sense, we are blinded/deafened/numbed from the Infinite by consciousness.

Math (as well as "sacred geometry") is remarkable in the sense that it can provide hints towards the infinitude of reality.
I think the thing that is missing is the exclusion of infinity from our thinking. Every philosopher (seemingly) strives to find a solution using infinity and it always leads to the same deadend: "Our finite minds can't comprehend the infinite... so let's forget this and go fishing."
But the mind can comprehend the Infinite, logically. What it cannot do is perceive or conceive it in whole, for the reasons explained above.
Birds see in quad-chrome, as opposed to our trichromatic vision, so they see more reality than we do; but to say that we don't see it all doesn't demand an infinite reality.
Birds merely see their own version of reality. It isn't any more or less than our own, except inasfar as we define it to be.
I don't think the infinite can contain the natural world because, if it did, the natural world would have no coordinates and no definite place. Infinity can't be graduated. However, what is infinite is nothing and nothing can contain something, but that something cannot be infinite or it would leave no place for the nothing. Duality insists on a finite "something".
The natural world, along with its coordinations and placements, indeed all things, are all arbitrary, illusory products of consciousness. These things only seem to have ultimate reality because we have no choice but to perceive them. I assure you, everything exists precisely in the same manner a mirage exists.. A very convincing mirage.
I can't see it... How can something exist where "existence" doesn't apply to it? If you're saying something exists outside of existence then it seems you're graduating existence into sets of existence.
The Infinite doesn't exist; things do. The Infinite is not a thing.
Why insist everything have a cause after claiming existence doesn't apply to Ultimate Reality?
Ultimate Reality is not a thing.
"If God is a self existing entity, and therefore a thing, then He too must be caused." Here I propose circular causation... God caused himself. It's no less silly than supposing God has existed infinitely-long. In fact, it seems the same thing. If Nature has existed infinitely-long, then there is no cause for its existence since it's always existed and you may as well say it caused itself.
God cannot cause Himself in the same way that a car cannot wreck into itself. Things can only cause other things. If God is a thing, then He acts as a cause and is comprised of causes.

Also, Nature is not a thing. If you can't tell by now; God, the Universe, Nature, Ultimate Reality, the Totality, the Infinite, and Infinite Causality are all the same to me.
What defines life is order. So on the question of when life begins just answer when does order first assert itself. The egg is ordered, though unfertilized, and it became that way by virtue of the mother who came from an egg and so on until we reach the original life which is God. There is no interruption in the chain where one could say "It's not alive, so let's kill it" because it's all life, all the way through time. The only question is to what extent is the life conscious and consciousness depends on modes of perception and then having awareness of perception you build your consciousness yourself into a sapience. Awareness and perception are gifts and talents, but sapience you construct on you own. It shouldn't be a question of when life begins, but a question of when enlightenment begins. When are you, you?
You are free to define life however you'd like. Just know that life will always and only be what it is defined to be.
It seems like you've come to the same conclusion I have... that the totality of infinite causality is the same as self-causation. My objection is that what is dumb cannot produce order. So, saying some dumb process of totality has always existed and exists of its own virtue is self-contradictory. However, saying a sapient process has always existed and exists of its own volition seems more reasonable.
There can be no such thing as "self causation," as explained above. Whether causality is dumb or not is up to you, but what it will always remain is perfect.
Do you think we should split this into more manageable chunks? Keeping track of the quote tags is becoming a mental exercise of its own. If so, I'll let you do it since I'm not practiced in the customs of this community.
Most of the time I like to include only the parts I am directly responding to, leaving the rest for others to go back to read if they are so inclined. But there's no set rule. We all do things a little differently around here, so do as you see fit.

Serendipper
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Serendipper » Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:06 pm

Russell Parr wrote:Indeed. You're on the verge, my friend. If only you can dismantle this particular blockage...
I need Drano for the soul :)

Reminds me of Yoda instructing Luke to "unlearn what you have learned."
Ultimately, the rock is no more real than the math/science we use to characterize various aspects of the rock. Both are equally dependent on the demarcations made by consciousness.
I agree but the difference is that we didn't create the rock. The rock is seen to exist by everyone and including animals, but math takes years of training (indoctrination?) to discover its existence.

There is no spoon.
Consciousness converts the Infinite into finites, thus giving us the reality of things.
How do you know it's not the other way around? Consciousness converts digital into analog, which is why we see 30 fps as continuous. Digital is duality, but analog is infinitely smooth.
Birds merely see their own version of reality. It isn't any more or less than our own, except inasfar as we define it to be.
Birds see colors that we can't imagine, such as ultra-orange. Even with all our machines assisting us, we still cannot see that color... or even imagine it. No infinity required.

I don't know if you know, but Superman was originally meant to be a character who evolved on another planet with stronger gravity, which gave him superhuman strength. He wasn't intended to fly, but only jump really high like we would on the moon. The light from his star allowed him to evolve perception of other frequencies of radiation, somewhat like birds on earth perceive ultraviolet light. Superman was sensationalized to emit xrays and lasers from his eyes and fly by some mysterious force. In reality, he would have been more like Batman, but from another planet.

A look at a spectrum graph reveals just how little of reality we can perceive. I say reality because, although rocks aren't necessarily real, vibrations are. Even if light and color are not real, the underlying vibrations that cause them are. Frequency is just information, which isn't tangible, but real nonetheless.
The natural world, along with its coordinations and placements, indeed all things, are all arbitrary, illusory products of consciousness. These things only seem to have ultimate reality because we have no choice but to perceive them. I assure you, everything exists precisely in the same manner a mirage exists.. A very convincing mirage.
I get what you're saying, but reality exists objectively to everyone like a multi-player video game exists to everyone regardless if one member turns his machine off. True that consciousness is required to give matter definite form and is a convincing mirage, but it doesn't solely depend on MY consciousness to make it happen. It's an objective mirage fueled by either a collective consciousness or a cosmic consciousness.

Likewise, a computer is not infinite. The game or mirage exists inside a finite memory. The game can give an illusion of walking down a hallway infinitely, but really you're not. Why can't infinity be an illusion created by reality?

If reality were infinite, then I postulate that we would have no awareness of ourselves. It's for the same reason that infinity cannot be graduated. Infinite "something" cannot contain finite "anything". If a computer memory were infinite, it would have no addressing capability. It couldn't store anything. Likewise, an infinite space cannot contain anything because it would have no coordinates. Infinite time can contain no time because there would be no differentiation of one moment from another and causality would have no meaning. How can X determine X+1 when X has no meaning? I maintain that infinity is the illusion and the "blockage" ;)

My personal opinion is that everyone is drawn to infinity like a bug to light because it's so complex that "meaning" must be in it somewhere and if we could be just a bit smarter maybe we could catch a glimpse of reality. It could be such an unfortunate distraction or red herring that's stinking up the room and obscuring a reality that's much simpler than we want it to be. Isn't it a fact that talent is mastery of the complicated but genius is simple? Maybe talent gets in the way of its own goal. (I'm referring to David Quinn's definition of genius.)

Otto's definition of genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it. That says to me that "learning" comes by way of "talent"; therefore, acquisition of knowledge is by observation, which is simple. Barking up the tree of complexity seems like an exercise in infinitely chasing your own tail.
God cannot cause Himself in the same way that a car cannot wreck into itself. Things can only cause other things. If God is a thing, then He acts as a cause and is comprised of causes.
Why can't I substitute as follows: Ultimate Reality cannot cause itself in the same way that a car cannot wreck into itself.

If you say "Ultimate Reality is not a thing", then why can't I say God is not a thing in the same way?

As far as I can tell, the only distinction between you and I is one of us asserts Reality is dumb and the other asserts it's intelligent.
Also, Nature is not a thing. If you can't tell by now; God, the Universe, Nature, Ultimate Reality, the Totality, the Infinite, and Infinite Causality are all the same to me.
That's the assumption I've been working under. Different names for the same thing.
Most of the time I like to include only the parts I am directly responding to, leaving the rest for others to go back to read if they are so inclined. But there's no set rule. We all do things a little differently around here, so do as you see fit.
This is much easier. Great conversation!

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:35 pm

Serendipper wrote:...30 fps as continuous. Digital is duality, but analog is infinitely smooth.
Yes interesting conversation and I only want to comment on this bit in passing. The analogy is interesting but continuous smooth movie watching or game play remains all about stuff happening. It creates the illusion there's something actually there, doing things or being done to it. Perhaps in this context a thing is what it does, a presence in time, as event. It has a past and moves to a future. A still life or freeze frame would be a special case I'll leave out for now. But the underlying layers remain gritty and atomic and even these become abstract and representations at best when being studied. Here we could see that causality goes beyond visual concepts or some abstract imagination.

Serendipper
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Serendipper » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:33 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Serendipper wrote:...30 fps as continuous. Digital is duality, but analog is infinitely smooth.
Yes interesting conversation and I only want to comment on this bit in passing.
You're more than welcome to stay and participate!
The analogy is interesting but continuous smooth movie watching or game play remains all about stuff happening. It creates the illusion there's something actually there, doing things or being done to it. Perhaps in this context a thing is what it does, a presence in time, as event. It has a past and moves to a future. A still life or freeze frame would be a special case I'll leave out for now. But the underlying layers remain gritty and atomic and even these become abstract and representations at best when being studied. Here we could see that causality goes beyond visual concepts or some abstract imagination.
Is there a way to tell if reality is smooth or merely our perception that makes it so? I've read conjectures that the speed of light is the speed of causality and that seems to imply some discreteness as if light has to transition from one moment to the next and that transition takes "time". If reality were smooth, then it would seem infinite speeds would be possible. If light travelled infinitely fast, time would not exist. It seems causality may have some "resistance" built into it analogous to electrical resistance in wires where electrons jump from one atom to the next in discrete fashion.

Has everyone seen the filming of a photon traveling through space at 1,000,000,000,000 fps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snSIRJ2brEk

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Russell Parr » Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:50 pm

Serendipper wrote:I agree but the difference is that we didn't create the rock. The rock is seen to exist by everyone and including animals, but math takes years of training (indoctrination?) to discover its existence.
Yes we didn't create the rock, but it doesn't exist without some sort of observation.
A nice scene, but more aimed at enticing glee than it is to teach us something real about the world. Morpheus gets a lot closer to the truth here.
Consciousness converts the Infinite into finites, thus giving us the reality of things.
How do you know it's not the other way around? Consciousness converts digital into analog, which is why we see 30 fps as continuous. Digital is duality, but analog is infinitely smooth.
There is no division into frames, or any division at all, without consciousness.
Birds see colors that we can't imagine, such as ultra-orange. Even with all our machines assisting us, we still cannot see that color... or even imagine it. No infinity required.
There is no "ultra-orange" without us knowing or hypothesizing what birds are able to see.
I don't know if you know, but Superman was originally meant to be a character who evolved on another planet with stronger gravity, which gave him superhuman strength. He wasn't intended to fly, but only jump really high like we would on the moon. The light from his star allowed him to evolve perception of other frequencies of radiation, somewhat like birds on earth perceive ultraviolet light. Superman was sensationalized to emit xrays and lasers from his eyes and fly by some mysterious force. In reality, he would have been more like Batman, but from another planet.
What was Superman before he was imagined?
A look at a spectrum graph reveals just how little of reality we can perceive. I say reality because, although rocks aren't necessarily real, vibrations are. Even if light and color are not real, the underlying vibrations that cause them are. Frequency is just information, which isn't tangible, but real nonetheless.
How do you know vibrations are real? Maybe vibration is an illusion created by something even more fundamental than vibrations. Even if that is the case..

Are vibrations really intangible? Even if we can't see it, we see the things that result from it. Conceptually, you seem to be able to grapple with it well enough to describe specific characteristics. Or what about..

What about your electric toothbrush? How is it that vibrations are real, but vibrating vibrations aren't?
I get what you're saying, but reality exists objectively to everyone like a multi-player video game exists to everyone regardless if one member turns his machine off. True that consciousness is required to give matter definite form and is a convincing mirage, but it doesn't solely depend on MY consciousness to make it happen. It's an objective mirage fueled by either a collective consciousness or a cosmic consciousness.
No thing can exist if there is no one for said thing to exist for.
Likewise, a computer is not infinite. The game or mirage exists inside a finite memory. The game can give an illusion of walking down a hallway infinitely, but really you're not. Why can't infinity be an illusion created by reality?
Infinite things, such as a virtual infinite hallway, are indeed illusory. The Infinite, however, is neither real or illusory. Dualism does not apply to Ultimate Reality.
If reality were infinite, then I postulate that we would have no awareness of ourselves. It's for the same reason that infinity cannot be graduated. Infinite "something" cannot contain finite "anything". If a computer memory were infinite, it would have no addressing capability. It couldn't store anything. Likewise, an infinite space cannot contain anything because it would have no coordinates. Infinite time can contain no time because there would be no differentiation of one moment from another and causality would have no meaning. How can X determine X+1 when X has no meaning? I maintain that infinity is the illusion and the "blockage" ;)
You continue to make the Infinite out to be a thing, which leads you to correctly finding errors.
My personal opinion is that everyone is drawn to infinity like a bug to light because it's so complex that "meaning" must be in it somewhere and if we could be just a bit smarter maybe we could catch a glimpse of reality. It could be such an unfortunate distraction or red herring that's stinking up the room and obscuring a reality that's much simpler than we want it to be. Isn't it a fact that talent is mastery of the complicated but genius is simple? Maybe talent gets in the way of its own goal. (I'm referring to David Quinn's definition of genius.)
The trick is to stop trying to apply meaning to the Infinite. Simple indeed.
Otto's definition of genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it. That says to me that "learning" comes by way of "talent"; therefore, acquisition of knowledge is by observation, which is simple. Barking up the tree of complexity seems like an exercise in infinitely chasing your own tail.
Then stop! :)
Why can't I substitute as follows: Ultimate Reality cannot cause itself in the same way that a car cannot wreck into itself.
Fine with me.
If you say "Ultimate Reality is not a thing", then why can't I say God is not a thing in the same way?
I'd encourage that.
As far as I can tell, the only distinction between you and I is one of us asserts Reality is dumb and the other asserts it's intelligent.
Rather, only one of us is trying to fit Ultimate Reality into a dualistic paradigm.
This is much easier. Great conversation!
Yes, I'm probably having a little bit too much fun with this myself.

Serendipper
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Serendipper » Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:15 pm

Russell Parr wrote:Yes we didn't create the rock, but it doesn't exist without some sort of observation.
Agreed.
A nice scene, but more aimed at enticing glee than it is to teach us something real about the world. Morpheus gets a lot closer to the truth
Oh yes, here's a formal presentation
There is no division into frames, or any division at all, without consciousness.
How do you know?
There is no "ultra-orange" without us knowing or hypothesizing what birds are able to see.
Yeah there is.
What was Superman before he was imagined?
Nothing, which is the same as he is after he was imagined.
How do you know vibrations are real? Maybe vibration is an illusion created by something even more fundamental than vibrations. Even if that is the case..

Are vibrations really intangible? Even if we can't see it, we see the things that result from it. Conceptually, you seem to be able to grapple with it well enough to describe specific characteristics. Or what about..

What about your electric toothbrush? How is it that vibrations are real, but vibrating vibrations aren't?
Vibrating vibrations are real. They are compound waves.

Vibrations are real because they don't tangibly exist, yet cause the appearance of tangible existence. The irony of the universe is that what falls on your foot, doesn't exist; but what exists are things that cannot be dropped.
No thing can exist if there is no one for said thing to exist for.
I agree with that. So if a galaxy floats off so far that the light can never reach us, then it no longer exists.
Infinite things, such as a virtual infinite hallway, are indeed illusory. The Infinite, however, is neither real or illusory. Dualism does not apply to Ultimate Reality.
Why doesn't dualism apply to ultimate reality?
You continue to make the Infinite out to be a thing, which leads you to correctly finding errors.
Are you sure you're not playing some game of semantics with me lol? Infinity has to be a thing or else we couldn't talk about it. Now, is it a real thing or an imaginary thing is the subject of the debate, I thought. It seems you want to use properties of its "thingness" when convenient and exclude them when not. Can you explain exactly what thing non-thing is?
The trick is to stop trying to apply meaning to the Infinite. Simple indeed.
If it has no meaning, it doesn't exist.
Then stop! :)
I'm not chasing my tail, but that carrot you seem to enjoy keeping just out of reach.
Rather, only one of us is trying to fit Ultimate Reality into a dualistic paradigm.
And the other is trying to exclude dualism, which is dualism.
Yes, I'm probably having a little bit too much fun with this myself.
Too much fun, what's that mean?
It's like too much money, there's no such thing
It's like a girl too pretty with too much class
Being too lucky, a car too fast
No matter what they say, I've done
But I ain't never had too much fun


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6gI7Ts14Qw

What kind of music do you like? (probably not country lol)

User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Russell Parr » Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:01 am

Serendipper wrote:Are you sure you're not playing some game of semantics with me lol?
It would seem so, and I don't blame you for thinking this. So instead of replying to everything, I will try to explain my view in whole in reply to just this part of your post.
Infinity has to be a thing or else we couldn't talk about it. Now, is it a real thing or an imaginary thing is the subject of the debate, I thought. It seems you want to use properties of its "thingness" when convenient and exclude them when not. Can you explain exactly what thing non-thing is?
When discussing the Infinite, or anything at all, we must treat it as a thing in order to talk about it, as you say. So the question is, how do we describe that which cannot be described?

By saying that it cannot be described. Or that duality cannot apply to it. It seems contradictory in expression to do so, but it is the only way. We cannot escape duality in language. We can only rely on our thinking to tell us the true meaning behind the words.

Ultimate Reality is a philosophical concept that refers to that which cannot be described or perceived by consciousness. Infinite Causality is a philosophical principle that refers to relational properties and processes of all that can and cannot be described or perceived.

Existence works as follows: Before something enters the field of consciousness (including my referencing to it as a something that precedes perception), it does not exist. Once we perceive of it in any way, whether by prediction, direct perception, memorization, imagination, only then does it exist. Once that thing completely leaves the field of consciousness, including memory, it no longer exists. It reenters the realm of non-duality, where characteristics or attributes no longer apply to it. Indeed, it loses all of its "thingness".

So how does the realm of perception fit into all of this? By recognizing its illusory nature. The profound truth is that the existence of things, including consciousness itself, is an illusion created by specific causal processes. It is an illusion because reality is ultimately infinite. Reality is infinite because causality is infinite. Causality is infinite because all things are caused, and no thing can cause itself.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6030
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Navigating Perpetual Existence

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:30 am

In another discussion I suggested the logic that the infinite cannot exist unless it's the only thing actually existing. But even then, when something would not exist, it does not automatically turns into meaninglessness or irrelevancy. Otherwise we could dismiss all stories, myths, examples and parables referring all the time to non-existing content. If anything, our language does nothing but refer to highly speculative and often impossible entities. As game, illusion or just simply vague hand waving and finger pointing.

Semantic problems with any "nature of existence" arise simply because one is already entering or embodying a fundamental truth before existence itself, or anything existing, could be contemplated. When awareness of our self develops, it's possible to recognize which truths are dragged into the question before the questioning starts. A good way to get there is to keep doubting and questioning, being the exponent of the weighing nature of mind.

Post Reply