Perfection

[sevens]

Infinity is Enlightenment - A pure phenomenon of the Mind (Soul).

Transcending both Space, and Time; it is your awareness, attuned to the constant flow of both.

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

Infinity is an undefined concept. Accept it [insert smiley]

UHOH

DQ will now miraculously provide us with

undefined = undefined

Not that easy DQ

In mathematics, "infinity" has a specific definition, as can be found in any mathematical dictionary. It is used to refer to a never-ending series of entities or numbers, for example.

In philosophy, the "infinite" is specifically defined to refer to the totality of all there is.

Each of these things is both specifically defined and has their own identity. That is why philosophers and mathematicans can reason about them and form conclusions about them, just as you have done.

You can't see this?

-

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

DQ: You're very boring. Where's Dr Beckworth?

Analog: Do you respect other human beings enough to spell their name correctly?

I only respect those who respect the truth.

Mispelling a person's name, or willfully evading the truth in order to preserve one's irrational beliefs - which is the greater crime?

-

[David Quinn]

BeingofOne wrote:

DQ: What has this to do with symmetry? As far as I know, symmetry simply refers to mirror imaging. A face has "symmetry" when its left side resembles its right side.

BO: Can you see your experience as A = A in everything that is? Do you not see a mirror image of what you are in all things?

I don't see the connection between the two questions. Yes, I can see that everything that I experience has its own identity. Yet I don't necessarily perceive a mirror imaging in the outer world of what goes on inside me. What are you talking about exactly?

And how do your questions square with what you said next:

DQ: Is your existence a part of the flux of experience or seperate from it?

BO: My existence is the flux of experience, always constant in a never ending state of expansion in awareness.

If your existence is in the flux of experience, and not seperate from it, then how can you speak of a mirror imaging between your self and your experiences? According to you, you are your experiences. There is no self apart from or behind the experiences, and thus there is no possibility for mirror imaging to take place.

-

[Leyla Shen]

I don't see what the problem is with spelling Beckworth's (sp.?) name. If A does not equal A (based on A=A, of course), I can spell it any way I want, really. For example, if A=B then his name could really be Aeckworth. Further, if A+A=2A, his real name is Aeckworth Aeckworth; or AAeckworth.

So, how do you spell his name?

[analog57]

Apples and oranges. In mathematics not all equal signs mean the same thing or does a symbol or number have an independent identity.

That's why A=A is foremost a logical operation in the realm of philosophy and not mathematics.

In terms of logic, the law "If A then A" creates much less ambiguity than your mathematical "A=A".

If reality is a unified whole as inevitably dictated BY the law of identity, then there is only one thing, and that one thing IS reality. Reality cannot be disjoint from itself, because a contradiction is created. Absolute separation cannot exist. Apples and oranges are two apparent differences that are ultimately the same substance, REALITY. Thus, different mental concepts - also are ultimately the same thing. Physical reality and mental reality are unified also.

A=A can only mean that:

REALITY = REALITY

The equals sign just gives it a rhetorical-pseudo-logico-mathematical authority though.

A better statement would be:

http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

"The real universe contains all and only that which is real."

[analog57]

Analog wrote:

DQ: You're very boring. Where's Dr Beckworth?

Analog: Do you respect other human beings enough to spell their name correctly?

I only respect those who respect the truth.

Mispelling a person's name, or willfully evading the truth in order to preserve one's irrational beliefs - which is the greater crime?

-

Interesting, so are you accusing Dr. Beckwith of evading the truth?

[analog57]

In mathematics, "infinity" has a specific definition, as can be found in any mathematical dictionary. It is used to refer to a never-ending series of entities or numbers, for example.

In philosophy, the "infinite" is specifically defined to refer to the totality of all there is.

Each of these things is both specifically defined and has their own identity. That is why philosophers and mathematicans can reason about them and form conclusions about them, just as you have done.

You can't see this?

-

Infinity cannot be *completely* understood by finite reasoning. The mathematical and philosophical definitions are not so mutually exclusive, as you and others keep trying to assert. The "totality of all there is" is a stipulation, not a complete definition. There is only one thing, REALITY, and reality can only be defined via circular reasoning.

Reality is Reality

OK now what?

[analog57]

I believe you're describing assumptions here, not absolutes. An absolute is really a conclusion to a piece of reasoning, one that cannot be overturned by the perfect use of reason. An assumption, on the other hand, may or may not be an absolute.

The "absolutes" are understood to be self evident truths, forming the basis of all logical reasoning.

A=A is not a conclusion, since reasoning follows from it, not the other way around.

[analog57]

Thus:

1. If time is a dimension, physical objects become changeless
2. In a 3-dimensional universe, time is a sequence of symmetry breaking.
3. In a 3-dimensional universe, physical objects are symmetries -- but not absolutes -- under transformation over time, which is not yet defined?
4. In a 4-dimensional universe, physical objects are both symmetries and absolute.

Yes and the 4 dimensional universe exists as a broken symmetry with respect to a higher level of "less broken" symmetry.

[analog57]

Syndiffeonesis Principle:

http://www.teleologic.org/

Syndiffeonesis - The expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax. Reality is a relation, and every relation is a syndiffeonic relation exhibiting syndiffeonesis or "difference-in-sameness". Therefore, reality is a syndiffeonic relation. Syndiffeonesis implies that any assertion to the effect that two things are different implies that they are reductively the same; if their difference is real, then they both reduce to a common reality and are to that extent similar. Syndiffeonesis, the most general of all reductive principles, forms the basis of a new view of the relational structure of reality..

[Beingof1]

Leyla Shen

If you think it is something you will hear only in one sentence, or even a whole book, I think you are wrong.

Very true, not even one story.

Apart from that, you should know I have a god-given speech impediment.

Besides, it's even alluded to in your Holy Book -- metaphorically, of course.

Do not be mistaken. I learn from you and others all the time. But I am very, very far from becoming a Christian if I am not one already.

Interesting, We are mastering the art of choice together you and I. We can choose to keep smashing our bodies into illusion until we quite literally die. Or we could choose for a state of being that is pure in its essence, Spirit if you will, in the awareness of being swept and carried by infinite life. Propelled through truth, wisdom, and love/caring.
I am grateful for your presence.

Namaste and Maranatha


Diebert van Rhijn

I've no problem with the Universe starting and ending with Christ.

Of course that would mean it starts and ends with you if ya know what I mean. ;)


DavidQuinn000

Quote:
DQ: What has this to do with symmetry? As far as I know, symmetry simply refers to mirror imaging. A face has "symmetry" when its left side resembles its right side.

BO: Can you see your experience as A = A in everything that is? Do you not see a mirror image of what you are in all things?

DQ: I don't see the connection between the two questions. Yes, I can see that everything that I experience has its own identity. Yet I don't necessarily perceive a mirror imaging in the outer world of what goes on inside me. What are you talking about exactly?

Who are those willing to surrender the personal for the Universal?

The fact is that because no one thing, event, or being of this universe is separable from the whole, the only real you, or self, is the whole. This is looking at the two - sided coin as when our reality becomes the whole or the totality, we lose an individual 'I'.

The more conscious we become the more we are aware of our choices and what they are founded upon and through. We begin to see that what we contemplate is universal.
We contemplate, as our thought is and becoming universal principles. It is equally true to surrender ourselves to what is as it could only be equal to who I am. What I think is and becoming universal principles. We know this because of the flux of our experience.

The more evolved in thought and awareness one is, the more important it is to make that choice and align with purity.
You know this from your own experience. As if when truth arrives we actually have a choice.

If you truly believe that what you experience has its own identity. Who gave this identity to your experience David?

If your existence is in the flux of experience, and not seperate from it, then how can you speak of a mirror imaging between your self and your experiences? According to you, you are your experiences. There is no self apart from or behind the experiences, and thus there is no possibility for mirror imaging to take place.

The reality of experience is not hidden, it is in plain view. I am the first cause or ground of being. I am not a being amongst other beings, I am not even a supremely great being. I am existense in and of itself.
You defy all concepts and definitions as you are the prime mover or necessary state of existence. You are becoming reality so to speak.

Yet you experience thought, cognition, hunger, and emotion.
In other words you experience desire -- as does all life.
You experience desire, this is evident as you are posting and alive.
What and who exactly is it that experiences desire?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I've no problem with the Universe starting and ending with Christ.

Of course that would mean it starts and ends with you if ya know what I mean. ;)

Not really, since i am not Christ...

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

DQ: I believe you're describing assumptions here, not absolutes. An absolute is really a conclusion to a piece of reasoning, one that cannot be overturned by the perfect use of reason. An assumption, on the other hand, may or may not be an absolute.

A:The "absolutes" are understood to be self evident truths, forming the basis of all logical reasoning.

A=A is not a conclusion, since reasoning follows from it, not the other way around.

There is no such thing as a "self-evident" truth. We can only know something is true by logically determining that it is true. Until this happens, it remains an article of blind faith.

For example, I have reasoned that A=A is not only impossible to challenge logically, but that it is necessarily applies to everything that exists. These are rationally-derived conclusions.

Let's leave the "self-evident truths" to the religious fundamentalists and the scientific materialists who don't want to challenge anything too deeply.

-

[David Quinn]

Analog wrote:

DQ: In mathematics, "infinity" has a specific definition, as can be found in any mathematical dictionary. It is used to refer to a never-ending series of entities or numbers, for example.

In philosophy, the "infinite" is specifically defined to refer to the totality of all there is.

Each of these things is both specifically defined and has their own identity. That is why philosophers and mathematicans can reason about them and form conclusions about them, just as you have done.

You can't see this?

A: Infinity cannot be *completely* understood by finite reasoning.

Which part of "never-ending" don't you understand?

The mathematical and philosophical definitions are not so mutually exclusive, as you and others keep trying to assert. The "totality of all there is" is a stipulation, not a complete definition.

It is indeed a complete definition. It specifically refers to everything that exists. You can't get any more complete than that.

There is only one thing, REALITY, and reality can only be defined via circular reasoning.

Reality is Reality

OK now what?

If you want to understand the fundamental nature of Reality, then first you are going to have to work out in your own mind what would satisfy you as being fundamentally real. What specific criteria would this "fundamental reality" necessarily have to have? Once you work this out, you can then investgate the Universe and begin to isolate what is ultimately real.

In my case, I decided any "Ultimate Reality" worth its name would have to be permanent, unchanging, beyond life and death, absolute in nature, everywhere and everywhen, and the root principle that creates all things. I decided that whatever conforms to this definition would constitute "Ultimate Reality".

Armed with this definition, it is then but a small step to discern the universal importance of the principle of change/causality and to explore its nature.

-

[David Quinn]

BeingofOne wrote:

Who are those willing to surrender the personal for the Universal?

I take it you're not married?

If you truly believe that what you experience has its own identity.

There's no question of that. If they didn't have their own identity, then they wouldn't be able to exist and we wouldn't be able to experience them.

They don't have any inherent identity, of course, but that's another issue. The identity of a particular object is a momentary creation, generated as much by the rest of the Universe as it is by its own internal workings. It is a fleeting, causally-created thing.

Who gave this identity to your experience David?

Plain old cause and effect did, BO.

The reality of experience is not hidden, it is in plain view. I am the first cause or ground of being. I am not a being amongst other beings, I am not even a supremely great being. I am existense in and of itself.

So why do you rape and torture small children, then?

-

[analog57]

There is no such thing as a "self-evident" truth. We can only know something is true by logically determining that it is true. Until this happens, it remains an article of blind faith.

For example, I have reasoned that A=A is not only impossible to challenge logically, but that it is necessarily applies to everything that exists. These are rationally-derived conclusions.

Let's leave the "self-evident truths" to the religious fundamentalists and the scientific materialists who don't want to challenge anything too deeply.

-

Analytic truths are true because their negation creates a contradiction.


Any logical proof depends on the law of identity. After the reasoning is complete, either a proposition is true X, or false not-X.

X cannot equal not-X

Identity is not a conclusion but a necessary truth. The question becomes: is there a domain of existence without constraint? ...meta-existence? outside the law of identity?

Any proof of the law of identity would necessarily depend on some form of the law of identity, so the reasoning MUST be circular, and constrained within a limited domain.

If infinite freedom exists then it is has zero constraint.

Does infinite freedom exist? If it does then it is not beholden to the law of identity.

[sevens]

Analog,

A = A

1 = 1

1A = 1A

Infinite worlds (freedom) exist, within the law of identity.

The meta-mind views Reality through an ever-revolving mirror -- spinning faster than the speed of light, until the distinction between I and A dissolves, along with the notion of a mirror.

[analog57]

Analog,

A = A

1 = 1

1A = 1A

Infinite worlds (freedom) exist, within the law of identity.

Infinite freedom is without boundaries or constraint. Un-parameterized by the "Law of Identity". It can only be inferred by sentience from within constrained reality.

[sevens]

That's what I'm saying.

You need a Reality to base your consciousness -- it becomes Infinite when your Imagination (unconscious mind) becomes locked and engaged.

The possiblities within this realm are boundless because the unconscious mind is intune with the ever-spiraling universe.

[Dave Toast]

Infinite freedom is without boundaries or constraint. Un-parameterized by the "Law of Identity". It can only be inferred by sentience from within constrained reality.

What other characteristics does it have?

[Leyla Shen]

Analog wrote:

In terms of logic, the law "If A then A" creates much less ambiguity than your mathematical "A=A".

I don’t see how, really.

A=A: Reality=Reality

If A then A: The real universe contains all and only that which is real.

Firstly, I don’t see how the sentence above is an example of “If A then A.” Shouldn’t it be more like: if the real universe contains all and only that which is real, then that which is real is the real universe. In other words, A=A.

There are no “if”s in there. It is a conclusion missing its reasoning, which certainly is not a demonstration of "If A then A."

[MKFaizi]

Being of One:

Clearly, you have stepped beyond my box.

Good.

Rots of ruck.

Faizi

[Leyla Shen]

Not really, since i am not Christ...

I reckon I'd rather be Christ than a Christian; or the Buddha rather than a Buddhist.

This is the one bit, at least, the Muslim faith appears to have right: no idol worship.

[Leyla Shen]

Namaste...

As long as it's to the God through me, I return your salutation.

...and Maranatha

He never left, Beingof1.