GENIUS FORUMS

More specifically, what is the essence of the Universe?
Or 'everything' or whatever you like to call it.


For example, the 'essence' of an even number is a number that is divisible by 2 without a remainder. This is true for all even numbers in all instances in all times....etc



Anyone know?

hades wrote:what is the essence of the Universe?

Compared to what?

When you look up definitions of words in a dictionary, to see what the "essence" of the meaning of the word is, it always refers to other words - that is, something other than itself.

In the case of the Universe, you can't say much about it other than it is not a particular finite thing.

ksolway wrote:

hades wrote:what is the essence of the Universe?

Compared to what?

When you look up definitions of words in a dictionary, to see what the "essence" of the meaning of the word is, it always refers to other words - that is, something other than itself.

In the case of the Universe, you can't say much about it other than it is not a particular finite thing.

So since there is nothing other than itself, we can't draw a comparison or derive a definition for it?

hades wrote:So since there is nothing other than itself, we can't draw a comparison or derive a definition for it?

We can only say what it is not. For example, "Infinite" literally means "not-finite". That is the same as the Universe.

If there was only a chocolate cake, and nothing else, then we might say that a chocolate cake was composed of all of its pieces, but is not itself a piece.

ksolway wrote:

hades wrote:So since there is nothing other than itself, we can't draw a comparison or derive a definition for it?

We can only say what it is not. For example, "Infinite" literally means "not-finite". That is the same as the Universe.

If there was only a chocolate cake, and nothing else, then we might say that a chocolate cake was composed of all of its pieces, but is not itself a piece.

Isn't this a problem?

This apophatic approach doesn't tell us what it actually is..just what its not.

what is infinite?

if you can define it without saying "not finite" then you know what universe is

LooF wrote:what is infinite?

if you can define it without saying "not finite" then you know what universe is

Doesn't that sound contradictory?

to define something is to make it finite, set some boundries on it


yet infinite is not finite, so how can you define it? Make it finite?

Infinity doesn't sound like a real thing, its more of a dualistic response to what exists. Things are finite, limited, changing.

Infinity is just the negation of what is real, adding Not to finite.
Not to Limit.
Not to change.

Not changing = permanant = illusion
Not limited = infinite = illusion


no?

hades wrote:More specifically, what is the essence of the Universe?
Or 'everything' or whatever you like to call it.


For example, the 'essence' of an even number is a number that is divisible by 2 without a remainder. This is true for all even numbers in all instances in all times....etc



Anyone know?

I could try.

The essence of Universe is an arbitrary division of an undivided whole.

hades wrote:

ksolway wrote:We can only say what it is not. For example, "Infinite" literally means "not-finite". That is the same as the Universe.

Isn't this a problem?

This apophatic approach doesn't tell us what it actually is..just what its not.

Pointing away from what something is not is actually pointing to what it is. So it's not a problem, so long as we can see what is pointed to.

to define something is to make it finite, set some boundries on it

A finite thing is by necessity a part (of the Totality). But the Totality (the Infinite) cannot be a part. So our defining it cannot make it finite.

Infinity doesn't sound like a real thing, its more of a dualistic response to what exists. Things are finite, limited, changing.

Yet the Infinite is beyond change. It is as real as existence itself.

Infinity is just the negation of what is real, adding Not to finite.

The Infinite doesn't detract from the finite world. The finite world is the body of the Infinite. That's why it is said, "There is no Infinite apart from finite things."

Not changing = permanant = illusion

You will need to explain why you think the Infinite, which is beyond change, might be illusory.

I’m going to pick words from your posts.

Once you put the universe into words, you lose what the universe is, because the signifier is not the signified, so understand this. Don’t just memorize these words and then think you understand everything because it doesn’t work like that.

The universe is an infinite undivided whole, which I suspect is intimately connected with an infinite number of other undivided wholes that we are unable to perceive because we don’t have the scientific tools necessary. Although Quantum Physicist David Bohm did good work in determining that this infinite undivided whole leads to another, and that one leads to another, and he suspects that it goes on for infinity.

As well this infinite undivided whole seems to have been constructed according to certain laws, which are observable. Duality is a law, which many scientists have overlooked For instance: Order and Chaos are balanced equals, and in a sense Order is Chaos, they are undivided, you cannot separate them. The same is true for Destruction and Creation, or Pleasure and Pain… and so on, Duality plays a vital role in this world, and duality seems to imply an intelligence, and not randomness.

And I suspect that this intelligence involves an infinite number of intelligent entities cooperating together in worlds that are much more complex, but simple than this one.

One god on a throne bossing everyone around is just nonsense, that thinking is the feebleness of the human brain at work, or should I say “The American Dream.”

here's a related joke that I heard from a friend of mine.

The cosmic_prostitute dies and goes to heaven. He casually walks over to god, who is sitting on his throne. The prostitute looks annoyed. He grabs god by the ear, and scorns him. "alright buddy, you're in my seat, get the fuck out."

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Once you put the universe into words, you lose what the universe is, because the signifier is not the signified

Words are just pointers, signifiers, as you say. So as long as this is understood, there's no problem using words.

The universe is an infinite undivided whole, which I suspect is intimately connected with an infinite number of other undivided wholes that we are unable to perceive because we don’t have the scientific tools necessary.

There can't logically be more than one undivided whole, unless you want to change the definition of "whole" to make it mean "part".

duality seems to imply an intelligence, and not randomness.

Define what you mean by "randomness". As far as I'm concerned, everything has a cause, even those things we can't predict, so randomness doesn't mean much to me. The causality of things doesn't imply an intelligence to me. Causality is just causality.

And I suspect that this intelligence involves an infinite number of intelligent entities cooperating together in worlds that are much more complex, but simple than this one.

And I suppose those intelligences were in turn created by other intelligences in worlds that are more complex, but simpler than theirs . . . and those intelligences were created by yet more intelligences . . . and so on. . . . It doesn't sound likely to me.

It doesn't sound likely to me.

why does it seem unlikely to you that there is an infinite number of universes, with an infinite number of entities occupying those worlds?

infinity is infinity. no cause. I'm suggesting that there maybe some sort of intelligence beyond causality... a mind with no cause. a mind that just is. no causality needed. it is only the human brain that wants to think it terms of cause and effect. it doesnt apply to the eternal mind.

I'm suggesting that Being is beyond cause and effect... The cause is the effect. another duality. The intellect cannot grasp infinity. you eventually just need to give up and remain in emptiness. in emptiness that mind with no cause may emerge. perhaps.

There can't logically be more than one undivided whole, unless you want to change the definition of "whole" to make it mean "part".

The part is the whole. another duality.

ksolway wrote: Pointing away from what something is not is actually pointing to what it is. So it's not a problem, so long as we can see what is pointed to.

Pointing to what something is not isn't telling anyone what it "is" -- just what its not. If I asked you to define an even number, and you replied by saying "its not 3, or 9, a tea cup, a spoon, or a tree" you would be telling me what its not all year and I still wouldn't know what an even number actually "is".

Yet the Infinite is beyond change.

How do you know this?

The finite world is the body of the Infinite. That's why it is said, "There is no Infinite apart from finite things."

+


You will need to explain why you think the Infinite, which is beyond change, might be illusory.

You need to explain how the "Infinite" (whatever that is) can be beyond change if it depends on finite things (things that constantly change).

If I have a cake, and each slice changes from time to time into another flavour, then it can be said the Cake is changing overall. No?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:

It doesn't sound likely to me.

why does it seem unlikely to you that there is an infinite number of universes, with an infinite number of entities occupying those worlds?

You didn't read what I said. I said that it doesn't sound likely to me that intelligent beings are created by other intelligent beings, and those intelligent beings are in turn created by yet other intelligent beings, and those intelligent beings are created by yet further intelligent beings, . . . and so on forever.

The word "Uni-verse" comes from "Uni" which means "One".

Thus, there can only be one universe, by definition.

Of course, you can change the definition of "universe" to mean some small part of the universe, but that seems rather pointless to me.

Just as you can change the meaning of the word "whole", to mean "part" - that is, its opposite. But I don't see any good reason to do so.

I'm suggesting that there maybe some sort of intelligence beyond causality... a mind with no cause. a mind that just is. no causality needed. it is only the human brain that wants to think it terms of cause and effect. it doesnt apply to the eternal mind.

There's only one thing that is necessarily without a cause, and that is the Totality itself. Anything else, no matter what you call it, is a part of the Totality, and all parts of the Totality necessarily have a cause.

hades wrote:Pointing to what something is not isn't telling anyone what it "is" -- just what its not.

In some cases pointing to what something isn't is pointing to what it is. If I point to "finite things" and say "it's not that", then there's only one other thing it can be. So I am in fact pointing the one thing it is.

Yet the Infinite is beyond change.

How do you know this?

It is a logical necessity, since change can only happen relative to other things. There needs to be contrast. In the case of the Infinite, there is no other thing, so it is beyond change.

You need to explain how the "Infinite" (whatever that is) can be beyond change if it depends on finite things (things that constantly change).

Done above.

If I have a cake, and each slice changes from time to time into another flavour, then it can be said the Cake is changing overall. No?

No. Not if the cake is the only thing there is. The parts are changing, but not the whole.

ksolway wrote: In some cases pointing to what something isn't is pointing to what it is. If I point to "finite things" and say "it's not that", then there's only one other thing it can be. So I am in fact pointing the one thing it is.

Except, you will be pointing to those finite things forever.
And no one will know what exactly you are refering to that 'isn't those things'.

It is a logical necessity, since change can only happen relative to other things. There needs to be contrast. In the case of the Infinite, there is no other thing, so it is beyond change.

After the change happens it will be different in relation to how it used to be. Once the slices of the cake are changed, the future cake will be different than the past cake.

The parts are changing, but not the whole.

Ehhh...how? But the whole is contingent upon its parts...

hades wrote:

ksolway wrote: In some cases pointing to what something isn't is pointing to what it is. If I point to "finite things" and say "it's not that", then there's only one other thing it can be. So I am in fact pointing the one thing it is.

Except, you will be pointing to those finite things forever.
And no one will know what exactly you are refering to that 'isn't those things'.

By implication I will be pointing elsewhere, and those with the ability will be able to see what I am indicating.

It is a logical necessity, since change can only happen relative to other things. There needs to be contrast. In the case of the Infinite, there is no other thing, so it is beyond change.

After the change happens it will be different in relation to how it used to be. Once the slices of the cake are changed, the future cake will be different than the past cake.

You are thinking of things changing in time. But the infinite includes all things, including time, so it cannot change in time. Time itself is a part of the Infinite.

Similarly with the cake - if it is the only thing, then it includes time, and so cannot change in time.

ksolway wrote:

By implication I will be pointing elsewhere, and those with the ability will be able to see what I am indicating.

No, thats too vague, no one will know what you are refering to because you lack specificity.

You are thinking of things changing in time. But the infinite includes all things, including time, so it cannot change in time. Time itself is a part of the Infinite.

Similarly with the cake - if it is the only thing, then it includes time, and so cannot change in time.

It can change in itself then. Once change happens then we can take time into account. First comes change then the comparison of time. And once it changes in itself it will be different than what it was.

Hades wrote:

KS: By implication I will be pointing elsewhere, and those with the ability will be able to see what I am indicating.

Hades: No, thats too vague, no one will know what you are refering to because you lack specificity.

Kevin is being very specific. I have no trouble understanding him. When he points away from the category of finite things (which necessarily includes all phenomena), there is nowhere else he can be pointing to other than ..... the infinite.

The infinite only seems to lack specificity to your mind because you cannot yet discern it.

-

hades wrote:

ksolway wrote:You are thinking of things changing in time. But the infinite includes all things, including time, so it cannot change in time. Time itself is a part of the Infinite.

Similarly with the cake - if it is the only thing, then it includes time, and so cannot change in time.

It can change in itself then. Once change happens then we can take time into account. First comes change then the comparison of time.

Change happens in time, so you can't have change happening without time.

That's why the All can't change.

Parts of the All can, however, change, since they can relate to time.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:

he points away from the category of finite things
(which necessarily includes all phenomena)

there is nowhere else he can be pointing to other than ..... the infinite.

The infinite only seems to lack specificity to your mind because you cannot yet discern it.

-

David:
If he points away from the category of finite things, "which necessarily includes all phenomena" and the Totality is that which includes all phenomena, isn't he pointing away from the Totality?

Actually david, the totality has to lack specificity, if you could specify exactly what it was, positively, then it would be limited by that particular thing, phenomena or essence etc....

A lack of specificty is what keeps it safe and vague...the "void"..heh

So far all I've heard are negative definitions, and negative definitions always lack specificity.

The infinite is limitless -- that which is not limited. That which is other than finite. Obviously its not finite by definition.
But what "is it" ? You can't say, you think you can imply it though...but you aren't.

If its simply the lack of a finite or limit how can you say its body is comprised of finite things? ->

ksolway "The finite world is the body of the Infinite." ?



This idea of the Infinite or Totality is very strange, you say you understand it but when asked to explain it all you can do is say what its not....

And if you can't say what it is -- if you don't know what it is how can you say what it is not?

I don't understand.

hades wrote:Obviously its not finite by definition.
But what "is it" ?

It's all around you, and it is you.

If its simply the lack of a finite or limit how can you say its body is comprised of finite things?

In the same way that we can say that a cake is composed of slices, or crumbs, or molecules, or whatever other divisions we settle upon.

This idea of the Infinite or Totality is very strange, you say you understand it but when asked to explain it all you can do is say what its not...

.

Sometimes saying what something isn't is exactly the same as saying what it is. For example, which whole number am I speaking of if it isn't any number other than one?

The Infinite is everywhere, and everywhen, etc.

In the same way that we can say that a cake is composed of slices, or crumbs, or molecules, or whatever other divisions we settle upon.

The cake is contingent upon those parts, if they change then the cake is fundamentally changed. If they are transformed there is no longer any cake...

If the cake is the only thing that exists, as you said originally, that makes no sense. It needs a background to have the idenity of cake, something that it is not. Infinities background is its own parts, because it is not finite. It is incoherent.

Sometimes saying what something isn't is exactly the same as saying what it is. For example, which whole number am I speaking of if it isn't any number other than one?

Thats a bad example.
Which person am I refering to on this forum if it isn't any person other than myself?

Obviously I'm refering to myself, but this is not via negative definition. You are positively identifying #1, as I am positively identifying myself.

It's all around you, and it is you.

Versus

then we might say that the totality is composed of all of its pieces, but is not itself a piece.

Ok atleast you tried a positive definition in the first quote.
But it contradicts your previous idea....make up your mind.

If it is not a piece or part, how can you say it is me?

Hades,

DQ: When he points away from the category of finite things (which necessarily includes all phenomena), there is nowhere else he can be pointing to other than ..... the infinite.

The infinite only seems to lack specificity to your mind because you cannot yet discern it.

H: If he points away from the category of finite things, "which necessarily includes all phenomena" and the Totality is that which includes all phenomena, isn't he pointing away from the Totality?

No, because the Totality is the only exception which falls outside the category of finite things. Hence, Kevin's pointing is very specific.

Actually david, the totality has to lack specificity, if you could specify exactly what it was, positively, then it would be limited by that particular thing, phenomena or essence etc....

A lack of specificty is what keeps it safe and vague...the "void"..heh

There is nothing vague about it. It is a very specific reality that I am very conscious of, and understand intimately.

So far all I've heard are negative definitions, and negative definitions always lack specificity.

You're only hearing what you want to hear. Kevin has specifically defined it to be "utterly everything". He cannot be any more positive or specific than that. It is a definition which is 100% precise and refers to something very real, which only wise men understand and enjoy.

The infinite is limitless -- that which is not limited. That which is other than finite. Obviously its not finite by definition.
But what "is it" ?

It is utterly everything.

Your ego is trying to reduce the reality of "utterly everything" into a simplified phenomenon that it can understand, but in doing so, it is erecting mental blocks which prevents you from discerning the simple truth before your eyes.

If its simply the lack of a finite or limit how can you say its body is comprised of finite things? ->

What else can it be comprised of?


-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:


No, because the Totality is the only exception which falls outside the category of finite things. Hence, Kevin's pointing is very specific.

Oh so he can point away from everything and by point away from everything he is actually pointing to everything?

I see, Totality is special like that. Because by pointing away from it you are actually pointing to it? And this makes sense how?

There is nothing vague about it. It is a very specific reality that I am very conscious of, and understand intimately.

Congratulations.

You're only hearing what you want to hear. Kevin has specifically defined it to be "utterly everything". He cannot be any more positive or specific than that. It is a definition which is 100% precise and refers to something very real, which only wise men understand and enjoy.

Yes, it sounds like a nice trinket for wise men...but Kevin hasn't been specific about it at all.

Yes, he has given it other cute names, Everything, Total, Infinite, etc...Synonyms don't help him or anyone else understand it.

His words were, "In the case of the Universe, you can't say much about it other than it is not a particular finite thing."

Indeed...not much can be said about it, nothing in particular actually...thus nothing specific.

It is utterly everything.

What is everything?
You are still not talking about anything in particular.

Your ego is trying to reduce the reality of "utterly everything" into a simplified phenomenon that it can understand, but in doing so, it is erecting mental blocks which prevents you from discerning the simple truth before your eyes.

Thank you for the psychoanalysis. Lets stay on topic :)