GENIUS FORUMS

No,
Addition of a concept to the universe is no addition at all.
Thats why concepts dont really exist.
"they are not an addition to the worlds furniture" [sic]
Sets dont exist because of the eleatic principle. They do not cause anything.
You can not give a thing to someone who has everything.
You cannot add anything to the universe since it contains everything. else where would that thing have come from?

There looks like an assumption there that 'universe' exists from its own side independent of an act of consciousness.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

No,
Addition of a concept to the universe is no addition at all.
Thats why concepts dont really exist.
"they are not an addition to the worlds furniture" [sic]
Sets dont exist because of the eleatic principle. They do not cause anything.
You can not give a thing to someone who has everything.
You cannot add anything to the universe since it contains everything. else where would that thing have come from?

There looks like an assumption there that 'universe' exists from its own side independent of an act of consciousness.

Italics: Yes - for a consciousness to exist - existence must already be

Bold: Now you puzzle me (because of the statement I bolded in your response above):
"the universe doesnt have to be infinite (value 1) ..for there to be nothing else (value 2)."

1) You seem to be using the word universe as meaning existence (sometimes used in short for totality of existence)
2) Nothing - the concept there of - is an unproven negative, and contradictory to existence.
3) In the context of the opening sentence (start of the thread), you are using it as a second value - which you correctly pointed out in the bolded statement:
"You can not give a thing to someone who has everything" (especially a/it's negative)

So I am at a loss as to what you are questioning (why the thread).

oxytocinNA wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote:

No,
Addition of a concept to the universe is no addition at all.
Thats why concepts dont really exist.
"they are not an addition to the worlds furniture" [sic]
Sets dont exist because of the eleatic principle. They do not cause anything.
You can not give a thing to someone who has everything.
You cannot add anything to the universe since it contains everything. else where would that thing have come from?

There looks like an assumption there that 'universe' exists from its own side independent of an act of consciousness.

Italics: Yes - for a consciousness to exist - existence must already be

Bold: Now you puzzle me (because of the statement I bolded in your response above):
"the universe doesnt have to be infinite (value 1) ..for there to be nothing else (value 2)."

1) You seem to be using the word universe as meaning existence (sometimes used in short for totality of existence)
2) Nothing - the concept there of - is an unproven negative, and contradictory to existence.
3) In the context of the opening sentence (start of the thread), you are using it as a second value - which you correctly pointed out in the bolded statement:
"You can not give a thing to someone who has everything" (especially a/it's negative)

So I am at a loss as to what you are questioning (why the thread).

I did not say "the universe doesnt have to be infinite for there to be nothing" i used the term "nothing else"

Negatives dont exist as well. Just as Universals cant be negatives.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

No,
Addition of a concept to the universe is no addition at all.
Thats why concepts dont really exist.
"they are not an addition to the worlds furniture" [sic]
Sets dont exist because of the eleatic principle. They do not cause anything.
You can not give a thing to someone who has everything.
You cannot add anything to the universe since it contains everything. else where would that thing have come from?

There looks like an assumption there that 'universe' exists from its own side independent of an act of consciousness.

Yes, that is what i beleive.

Yes - for a consciousness to exist - existence must already be

for existence to exist-a consciousness must already be.
why persist with a subject/object fiction?

the passing parade of images are relative.
spectating the spectacle.
it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and meaningless.

'given-that-I-must-exist'

Speaking of spectating spectacles, was just engaging in some wildly vivid dreams, the emotions, reasons and feelings of meaning that arose blow me away now when I look back on it.

Religious people want consciousness to come before the Universe.

How would that work?

What would the consciousness be made of?

Where would it be situated?

The consciousness before the Universe existed needs to be made from the Universe.

So first you need the particles...

How long before consciousness can arrive?

Well, the matter distribution looks like a brain, so, who knows?...

http://www.space.com/17234-universe-fra ... heory.html

Compare to a brain...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... _ref=brain

There isn't much difference.

Consciousness creates Reality.

The question for asking,

given-I-must-exist
given-consciousness-must-exist

in order to?
for the ultimate sake of which?

do what I/It wants
do what I/It is expected to

neither/both

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It would be way better to see it in terms of 'finitudes' only relating to everything else (it is the sum of relations) and the infinite as relating to nothing (emptiness) and one could perhaps say the infinite relates only to itself. But that would mean existence exists inherently which might lead to problems though in conceiving of it.

I would say that either a finite thing relates to everything else or the infinite relates to nothing.

Maybe your definition is that a thing relates to everything else except to itself.

Here is the reasoning that a universe exists independent of consciousness.

A=A in that a cup exists ---> Skip the part of a mind conceiving the cup ---> I perceive the cup so the cup has existence ---> Skip the part that I am aware of the cup ---> The cup has properties ---> Skip the part where the mind distinguished the properties ---> The cup has parts ---> Skip the part that the mind dissected the cup into its parts ---> The cup exists by the fact of what it is not or is bounded ---> Skip the part that the boundaries were decided on by the mind ---> Therefore the universe exists independent of the mind ---> Says the mind hidden in plain view.

The mind becomes enamored by the infinite amount of things it can behold and convinces itself there must be more things that can be and are. The stunning reality is - the entire drama of the universe, never once, leaves your consciousness. The mind tricks itself by being entangled with a single object, knowing it can do this continuously, and therefore relates a thing that is not there and comes to the conclusion that because it can never run out of things - the mind manufactures more artificial things that can never be imagined and insist they exist.



http://www.flickr.com/groups/1369900@N23/

So blunt Dennis, sound like someone I know.



Beingof1

That sounded like reasoning for why it doesn't exist independent of consciousness, or am I confused?

Beingof1 wrote:Here is the reasoning that a universe exists independent of consciousness.

A=A in that a cup exists ---> Skip the part of a mind conceiving the cup ---> I perceive the cup so the cup has existence ---> Skip the part that I am aware of the cup ---> The cup has properties ---> Skip the part where the mind distinguished the properties ---> The cup has parts ---> Skip the part that the mind dissected the cup into its parts ---> The cup exists by the fact of what it is not or is bounded ---> Skip the part that the boundaries were decided on by the mind ---> Therefore the universe exists independent of the mind ---> Says the mind hidden in plain view.

The mind becomes enamored by the infinite amount of things it can behold and convinces itself there must be more things that can be and are. The stunning reality is - the entire drama of the universe, never once, leaves your consciousness. The mind tricks itself by being entangled with a single object, knowing it can do this continuously, and therefore relates a thing that is not there and comes to the conclusion that because it can never run out of things - the mind manufactures more artificial things that can never be imagined and insist they exist.



http://www.flickr.com/groups/1369900@N23/

The cup has properties ---> Skip the part where the mind distinguished the properties --->

The mind doesn't distinguish the properties, they are external to the mind. The mind has properties, it cannot distinguish itself with itself. That's a paradox. No theory can include a paradox. So if you change CUP to MIND, then you can see the mistake.

---> The cup has parts ---> Skip the part that the mind dissected the cup into its parts --->

The mind is very poor at dissecting things into parts. That's why so many people suffer from delusions. We don't think of ourselves as zero particles, nobody does but me, and that's out of 7 billion minds. Nobody realises that we push when we pull because nobody is dissecting us into atoms.

Try this trick...

1/ Pull your mouse towards the chair that you are sitting in.
2/ Now push your mouse towards the chair that you are sitting in.

Did your fingers move at all?

We are atoms, when we pull we actually push, but the mind is poor at dissecting things into parts.

That's two mistakes you have made.

Here's why my theory says that the Universe is infinite, and made up from particles. This image is part of a scientific survey of all of the matter in space, and its location. I have put a hexagon grid over the image, and changed the colours. Now you should see that the Universe has a hidden hexagon structure. Hexagons are fractals, so this is a fractal Universe. Fractals repeat forever very easily.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum ... 7582;image

Fractals in nature...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... in-nature/

the theory depends on the instruments used for measure and the inferences made thereupon concerning phenomena.
causes/conditions.
dependent arising.
there is no evidence phenomena is infinite in any sense of the word.

phenomenal existence could shut down at 6 o'clock tonight, you can't guarantee that is not possible.

Dennis Mahar wrote:the theory depends on the instruments used for measure and the inferences made thereupon concerning phenomena.
causes/conditions.
dependent arising.
there is no evidence phenomena is infinite in any sense of the word.

phenomenal existence could shut down at 6 o'clock tonight, you can't guarantee that is not possible.

Not really, I came up with the theory before the readings were made. My theory was based on nature, and the snowflake originally. The snowflake was my proof of the fractal, but then science posted that image, and I noticed that it included my snowflake fractal. I think however that the fractal in the telescope is too good. I never expected space to have a perfect fractal, just a messy one. When you have an idea, it is often discovered after you had the idea. So the instruments only play a part years later, and not before. It seems to me that your post suggest that the evidence is found first, then the theory. It's not like that.

'snowflake fractal' depends.
causes/conditions.

if it depends it exists conditionally.

Dennis Mahar wrote:'snowflake fractal' depends.
causes/conditions.

if it depends it exists conditionally.

What does that mean? Strange use of English.

your theory depends on your mind.
interdependent.

a mind that conceives of an electron.
the electron that is conceived by it does not exist independently of that mind,
nor does that mind exist independently of the electron it conceives.

The relationship between the two is not a sequential one.
It's more like the relation between a husband and wife.
a man is not a husband unless he has a wife and a woman is not a wife unless she has a husband.

being husband and wife are mutually dependent.
a man does not become a husband before a woman becomes his wife.

are husband and wife depending on conceptual designation? Yes.

is your theory depending on conceptual designation? Yes.

It is conditional.

Hi Dennis

There is no way we may (ever perhaps) know whether or not there is anything "out there".
but that doesnt mean we can move from stating that to concluding that there really isnt anything "out there". Its
a problem of epistemology , not metaphysics.

Dennis Mahar wrote:your theory depends on your mind.
interdependent.

a mind that conceives of an electron.
the electron that is conceived by it does not exist independently of that mind,
nor does that mind exist independently of the electron it conceives.

The relationship between the two is not a sequential one.
It's more like the relation between a husband and wife.
a man is not a husband unless he has a wife and a woman is not a wife unless she has a husband.

being husband and wife are mutually dependent.
a man does not become a husband before a woman becomes his wife.

are husband and wife depending on conceptual designation? Yes.

is your theory depending on conceptual designation? Yes.

It is conditional.

Yes, but you are using the word 'mind'. So you admit that the mind exists. therefore you accept particles exist. You are making the same mistake as SeekerOfWisdom. To accept that the mind exists is to accept physics. If you accept that physics exist then you accept that the electron can exist. The delusion breaks apart very quickly with the acceptance that the mind exists.

chikoka wrote:Hi Dennis

There is no way we may (ever perhaps) know whether or not there is anything "out there".
but that doesnt mean we can move from stating that to concluding that there really isnt anything "out there". Its
a problem of epistemology , not metaphysics.

Hi Chikoka,
In order to determine if there is an "out there" we must first define what that means. Where would "out there" begin?

Beingof1 wrote:

chikoka wrote:Hi Dennis

There is no way we may (ever perhaps) know whether or not there is anything "out there".
but that doesnt mean we can move from stating that to concluding that there really isnt anything "out there". Its
a problem of epistemology , not metaphysics.

Hi Chikoka,
In order to determine if there is an "out there" we must first define what that means. Where would "out there" begin?

We cant know where "out there" would begin because we would be forced to say "where it appears to begin".Which is what i'm guessing you wanted me to say.
We only know about what appears to us but that is a statement of what we can know (epistomology) rather than a statement of what exists (metaphysics)

Yes, but you are using the word 'mind'. So you admit that the mind exists. therefore you accept particles exist. You are making the same mistake as SeekerOfWisdom. To accept that the mind exists is to accept physics. If you accept that physics exist then you accept that the electron can exist. The delusion breaks apart very quickly with the acceptance that the mind exists.

Hang on to your hat.

emptiness and dependent origination discloses mind/consciousness to be of a relative nature only.
it appears to exist from its own side but has no independence whatsoever.

ultimately, it doesn't exist.

because it exists relationally in concert with its objects,
howtofor
WTF.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Yes, but you are using the word 'mind'. So you admit that the mind exists. therefore you accept particles exist. You are making the same mistake as SeekerOfWisdom. To accept that the mind exists is to accept physics. If you accept that physics exist then you accept that the electron can exist. The delusion breaks apart very quickly with the acceptance that the mind exists.

Hang on to your hat.

emptiness and dependent origination discloses mind/consciousness to be of a relative nature only.
it appears to exist from its own side but has no independence whatsoever.

ultimately, it doesn't exist.

because it exists relationally in concert with its objects,
howtofor
WTF.

Can you prove that?

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Yes, but you are using the word 'mind'. So you admit that the mind exists. therefore you accept particles exist. You are making the same mistake as SeekerOfWisdom. To accept that the mind exists is to accept physics. If you accept that physics exist then you accept that the electron can exist. The delusion breaks apart very quickly with the acceptance that the mind exists.

Hang on to your hat.

emptiness and dependent origination discloses mind/consciousness to be of a relative nature only.
it appears to exist from its own side but has no independence whatsoever.

ultimately, it doesn't exist.

because it exists relationally in concert with its objects,
howtofor
WTF.

It takes physics to think, it is impossible to redirect the mind from the mind. It is impossible for the mind to be relative to the mind. Your just using words to redirect the outcome of a losing argument. Losing the argument creates your delusion to throw in a false claim. Your false claim however is a paradox. It is impossible to win an argument with a paradox, because a paradox loses its own argument.

Mind creates mind = paradox = false.

Mind creates mind = paradox = false.

I said mind is a condition,
produced by causes.
It doesn't exist in and of itself.
because it's causal in nature it can't exist ultimately.

because it's conditional it's changeable, transformable,
it's possibilities are delusion and enlightenment.
it can realise it's activity.

Can you prove that?

It's your job to prove mind is absolute.
switch it off and get back to me.