Can causality be infinite?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by samadhi »

sam: If it's all God, the beliefs are equivalent.

Kevin: God does different things, and different things are different.
You are trying to have it both ways. You want to appeal to God to justify your actions but when I say all actions are from God, you backpedal and say God does different things. Get your story straight, okay.
sam: What is the consequence of drinking water under a belief in causation versus a belief in free will?

Kevin: Do you understand how belief in free will is a delusion? If you don't understand this then you won't understand how the consequences will be different.
It isn't a question of what I understand, it is what you understand. When I ask you to explain your understanding, you evade. Obviously you don't understand or you could explain it.
sam: Nevertheless, we agree on those emotions, don't we?

Kevin: Not for the same reason. If you had the same reasons as I do then you wouldn't be speaking only of a subset of emotions.
Emotions that seek control over others are antithetical to a belief in causation. Do you really have a problem with admitting that?
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Kevin Solway »

samadhi wrote:
God does different things, and different things are different.
You are trying to have it both ways. You want to appeal to God to justify your actions but when I say all actions are from God, you backpedal and say God does different things.
I think you are incapable of even basic logic, so this discussion cannot proceed. The idea of God doing all things, but doing all different things, is a very simple one, but you are unable to grasp it.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Jamesh »

I still don't see how anyone can value truth, without such value being intrinsically determined by emotional triggers.

------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of infinity rather than causality, is there anyone here that believes in physical infinity of the type that the universe form we observe, namely atoms, stars galaxies etc, just goes on and on forever?
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Kevin Solway »

Jamesh wrote:I still don't see how anyone can value truth, without such value being intrinsically determined by emotional triggers.
Once the valuing of truth has been triggered, it no longer needs to be triggered, so things such as emotions are no longer needed.
Speaking of infinity rather than causality, is there anyone here that believes in physical infinity of the type that the universe form we observe, namely atoms, stars galaxies etc, just goes on and on forever?
That would seem the most likely. There may be an infinite number of "big bangs", each with their own "universe", which are all part of the larger Universe.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by mikiel »

Jamesh: "Speaking of infinity rather than causality, is there anyone here that believes in physical infinity of the type that the universe form we observe, namely atoms, stars galaxies etc, just goes on and on forever?"

Kevin: "That would seem the most likely. There may be an infinite number of "big bangs", each with their own "universe", which are all part of the larger Universe.'

Jamesh,
Science is not about belief. There is, scientifically speaking a "cosmic event horizon." It is complicated, but, essentially, we can not "see" (even via the best technology) beyond the "sphere" defined by the equation balancing our rate of cosmic expansion (still accelerating... near lightspeed) with light returning from the outer reaches at lightspeed.
We are totally blind beyond this cosmic event horizon.

That said, I agree with Kevin's last sentence. But we can only imagine.
What I know for sure is that space is infinite, regardless of what other cosmi might occupy it. Try to imagine an "end of space."
(Absurd!) What, a wall? Of what? And, beyond that?... You get my drift.
mikiel
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Jamesh »

That would seem the most likely. There may be an infinite number of "big bangs", each with their own "universe", which are all part of the larger Universe.

[re - big bangs within sub-verses. yeah I agree, but otherwise, nope. You didn't actually respond precisely to what I was asking]


My intuition tells me a little differently. Though perhaps this is just a failing of my intuition.

If the style of the universe we observe, is infinite in extent, then in all moments there are an infinity of persons called James Hayes, typing this exact response, and there are an infinity of persons called James Hayes typing an almost exact match, and so on.

Nope, I do not accept that, but I cannot isolate the logic that would prove this matter either way.

What I believe is that there is only one universe, and it is the one we observe, however what we observe is not infinite. The causes are infinite, but the effect is not. We only observe effects. No effect can possibly be infinite. The only effect we consider to be infinite is The Totality.

I believe in an hierarchical physical structure, that ends in the oneness of The Totality. However even this creates a problem. Though the base of everything is clearly infinite, and so to must be the initial effect, be it space or time or space-time, Zeno's paradoxes show us how that any division/addition of infinity into effects leaves an infinity of such divisions/additions, so at no point does a Totality arise. This prevention of "addition-to-oneness" is not necessarily a "wrong" thing, as perhaps that is what is needed to prevent a static whole.

We can however see that this division of infinity does occur, and with each division a lesser quantity results as an effects. eg. There is far more existence of light/radiation, than atoms, there are far more atoms than stars, there are far more stars than galaxies.

What this mathematical problem/effect actually makes me think is that IMAGINED Totality when viewed as the uppermost level of physical construction, when viewed as the outcome of infinite division/addition of the commencing infinity, then the Totality itself is simply one of the fundamental forces. It is the end infinity of absolute oneness that can never be reached in a physical manner, as opposed to the type of infinity that results from nothingness being an impossibility. Nothingness in any non-infinite form is without any shred of doubt a logical impossibility, but there may be a nothingness that is infinite, which would mean it is a part of all physical things.

At present I couldn’t be bothered wording this to make more sense. I guess what I'm saying is that the Totality is the effect of All (the beginning of existence) AND Nothing (the outcome of physical existence), at the same time.

In saying the above one must note that I am not suggesting (though it appears otherwise) any form of linear path whereby the universe fundamentally begins from ONE force, The Infinite MANY, and ends with another, The Infinite ONE. No, there is no start and finish to reality - at all times both are causally creating every physical thing.

Just posting this mess in case I feel like revisit this henid conceptualisation, later on. Mind you all conceptualisations bout the concept of infinity are of the henid varieity.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Jamesh »

Science is not about belief.

All concepts are about belief. Belief is just a way of saying "I am attached to this particular set of logic"


There is, scientifically speaking a "cosmic event horizon." It is complicated, but, essentially, we can not "see" (even via the best technology) beyond the "sphere" defined by the equation balancing our rate of cosmic expansion (still accelerating... near lightspeed) with light returning from the outer reaches at lightspeed.
We are totally blind beyond this cosmic event horizon.


Yes, I know this. But one must always ask - just what would make any other sub-universe or other part of this universe different? I do not believe in universes that are fundamentally different in relation to the evolution of matter. To me what is inside an atom, and perhaps outside of the universe that exists at our level of physical existence (as in our universe being the equivalent of an atom within a larger universe), will follow the same physical evolution rules.

That said, I agree with Kevin's last sentence. But we can only imagine.
What I know for sure is that space is infinite, regardless of what other cosmi might occupy it. Try to imagine an "end of space."
(Absurd!) What, a wall? Of what? And, beyond that?... You get my drift.


Agree. That is a reason why nothingess does not exist. The other is that physical nothingess cannot be caused, or if it did exist could not be a causal influence. In my post above I was referring to a different form of infinite nothingness. i refer to it as the contracting force - which is is not true nothingness as we tend to attempt to conceptiualise same. The type of nothingness I refer to as being fundamental exists as a nothingess with the power to "make what exists lesser".

Space is definitely infinite in dimensions. It is the initial combination of two initial infinites, so cannot be otherwise. Space is the only form of ultimate freedom from physical boundaries - it provides for complete freedom for physical things to expand and contract, which I class as a style of infinity. It however is caused, so is in no way fundamental, but rather an effect of an existing process.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by mikiel »

Jamesh wrote:Science is not about belief.

All concepts are about belief. Belief is just a way of saying "I am attached to this particular set of logic"

To the extent that a scientist is biased by personal belief, s/he is not being objective, one of the ideals of the scientific method. Persuit of truth, in science as in philosophy and spiritual seeking, requires transcendence of all personal attachments.


There is, scientifically speaking a "cosmic event horizon." It is complicated, but, essentially, we can not "see" (even via the best technology) beyond the "sphere" defined by the equation balancing our rate of cosmic expansion (still accelerating... near lightspeed) with light returning from the outer reaches at lightspeed.
We are totally blind beyond this cosmic event horizon.


Yes, I know this. But one must always ask - just what would make any other sub-universe or other part of this universe different? I do not believe in universes that are fundamentally different in relation to the evolution of matter. To me what is inside an atom, and perhaps outside of the universe that exists at our level of physical existence (as in our universe being the equivalent of an atom within a larger universe), will follow the same physical evolution rules.

Agreed.

That said, I agree with Kevin's last sentence. But we can only imagine.
What I know for sure is that space is infinite, regardless of what other cosmi might occupy it. Try to imagine an "end of space."
(Absurd!) What, a wall? Of what? And, beyond that?... You get my drift.


Agree. That is a reason why nothingess does not exist. The other is that physical nothingess cannot be caused, or if it did exist could not be a causal influence. In my post above I was referring to a different form of infinite nothingness. i refer to it as the contracting force - which is is not true nothingness as we tend to attempt to conceptiualise same. The type of nothingness I refer to as being fundamental exists as a nothingess with the power to "make what exists lesser".
"Nothingness does not exist? Space *is* no-thing-ness, the emptiness between "things", micro to macro. As to causes... The universal law of conservation of matter/energy says, truly that neither can be created or destroyed. Therefore, and logically, all "stuff" comprizing cosmos has always existed and will continue to exist. There is no "something out of nothing", so the only plausable cosmology is the eternally oscillating model... the "Bang/Crunch" model. Your last sentence above makes no sense to me. What is *is* and what aint... aint. What aint does not detract or "make lesser" what is. ??

Space is definitely infinite in dimensions. It is the initial combination of two initial infinites, so cannot be otherwise. Space is the only form of ultimate freedom from physical boundaries - it provides for complete freedom for physical things to expand and contract, which I class as a style of infinity. It however is caused, so is in no way fundamental, but rather an effect of an existing process.
I don't get your " initial combination of two initial infinites", or how you see space (emptiness) as "caused", since it is the absence of manifest "stuff."

Thanks for the conversation. (I wonder if the admin would allow a "Science" thread... being as it is not listed as appropriate subject matter for this forum. Maybe I'll start one and see if it is allowed.)

mikiel
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by samadhi »

Kevin,
I think you are incapable of even basic logic, so this discussion cannot proceed. The idea of God doing all things, but doing all different things, is a very simple one, but you are unable to grasp it.
Let's see. You bring up God to justify your actions. I remind you that God can be used to justify everyone's actions. You come back and say God does different things. Like cause people to believe in free will, right? But you don't want to justify that, do you? So you blame me and take off. Have you ever realized what a self-parody you are?
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Kevin Solway »

samadhi wrote:You bring up God to justify your actions.
I raised the issue of God because it's the truth, that's all. It is the truth, as opposed to the lie of free agency. God is the doer of all things, both good and evil. You have a mental block about this issue.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Jamesh »

mikiel
I don't get your "initial combination of two initial infinites",
I’ve been yapping on here for a few years about the whole of nature consisting entirely of two forces, namely Expansion and Contraction. I won’t go into this much here. The moderators are probably tiring of me ranting on about this – but I quite like it as I discover new truths (or potential truths) each time I write in detail.
or how you see space (emptiness) as "caused", since it is the absence of manifest "stuff."
I regard anything observable as being caused, so I do not take it for granted that space “just is”. Space is something because it has (or provides for) dimensions and movement.

I look at the two forces Expansion and Contraction, as providing a hierarchy of existence, where space (or spacetime) is the initial layer of the unity of these two forces. It is the only “point” of existence wherein the two forces perfectly equalise each other, ie a perfect 50/50 % of each. The 2 forces are infinite, so this perfect manifestation necessarily exists infinitely as well, as at all times there logically must be a middle point (it is a bit like the centre of gravity that must always exist within any object). Because it is a perfect balance, this allows objects within it the complete freedom to expand or contract in any direction without resistance.

Without expansion and contraction things could not move, in fact this is how things actually do move – the release of the expansion force through the destruction of structural balances pushes the object in a direction opposite to where the expansion is occurring, and the increased strength of the contracting force that results after the release of the expansionary force, pulls the material that is still in balance in to it. eg. hit a cue ball and the outermost atoms are destroyed and segregated into parts, which results in an expansion of that territory occupied by those atoms. The expansion pushes against the cue and causes movement away from the cue as the opposite path is one of lesser resistance. Some of the parts of the destroyed atoms do affect the internals of the cue ball - but they are like balls in a pin ball machine, most of the time they just cause the object to heat up (like the pinball lights). Hit the cue ball hard enough though and it can be caused to fracture.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by mikiel »

A little trans-thread integration here requested.
From "The unity between applied science and wisdom" thread:

Kevin Solway wrote:
---------------
Re motivation.
Once you are enlightened you will continue doing whatever it was you were doing a moment before.

Why does a tree grow? It grows because the causes are in place for it to do so (if they are). Likewise with the enlightened person. If the enlightened person previously sought to live perfectly truthfully, and to spread wisdom, then they will continue to do so.
-----------------

mikiel wrote:
---------------
"Kevin misses by a mile the whole point and meaning of enlightenment.
Pre-enlightenment one is driven by egoic conditioning, the ubiquitous programing of the human bio-robot.
Post enlightenment the former is transcended. "Pre" is looking out for #1. "Post" is knowing there is only One, that we are all Family, and the spontaneous motivation, born of universal love inherent in this gnosis, is to serve in whatever way is presented in one's individual life. (One as living through "this one" post enlightenment.)

Consciousness is primary "cause." Universal consciousness transforms the individual illusion of "me" and "my motivations."
One prayer of such surrender (of the illusory "me") is "Thy will be done." Not based on belief but on gnosis. Giving up an illusion is a no-brainer once one "knows" the Truth.

No one could possibly be further from the Truth here, Kevin."
-----------------

Then in Kevin's last post here he says:
"I raised the issue of God because it's the truth, that's all. It is the truth, as opposed to the lie of free agency. God is the doer of all things, both good and evil...."

This is really stupid. The illusion of egoic "free will" is effectively the cause of suffering. You might say "The Devil made me do it" and if we were to equate egoic consciousness with this "devil"... who could argue? But don't blame God. God realization bears all good and loving fruit. And the operative dynamic here is *realization.* Ignorance... ignoring real unity consciousness also bears the bitter fruit, the denial of which is the stupidity cited above.
And previously in this thread, just to beat the dead horse here, Kevin said:
"We are speaking of causation, and God is the cause of all actions."

Given the above context (from both threads) I have basically pointed out that the cause of egocentric actions is selfishness based on the illusion of separate self and that elightenment is surrender of the "self" illusion into the reality of God, the Creator and "cause" of enlightened actions. (Un-enlightened actions being caused ironically by the illusion of personal will... which motivates all egoic actions.)
So if the pre-enlightened person did *not* seek "to live perfectly truthfully, and to spread wisdom," then egoic will was actually calling the shots, willfully manifesting the illusion of separate identity and all the attending suffering. Ignoring God, Truth, the reality of True Identity is the "cause" of "evil." Ignor-ance *is* an option, and the result is suffering. The Truth (God) sets one free from this destructive karmic cycle of self-willed ignorance.
(So this admittedly says the same thing in several ways. No harm. Hoping for more clarity from different ways of sayig it.)

mikiel
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Iolaus »

Brokenhead,
However, I believe you are correct about the person who believes in "free agency" causing bad effects. The concept of "free agency" was one of the core notions of the Lucifer Manifesto, the idea being that if you act according to your will, then your are by definition doing "the right thing." Believing in this dictum, which is none other than Crowley's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," naturally circumvents man's natural desire to discover the right thing. It means man will follow his desire rather than considering consequences, acting contrary to rather than in concert with the Tao. It means, in Christian terminology, not surrendering one's will to that of the Universal Father, but rather elevating one's own.
But don't you see that there is a difference between believing that one has a free will, versus thinking that whatsoever you decide to do is the right thing?

One is a path of service to self, with might making right. The other is actually neutral, but allows for either path; just to please James Hayes I will call them the paths of contraction (personal power and dominance) versus the path of expansion (an expended sense of self to include everyone).
Dreams are the mind's waste material.
What a shocking thing to say. Some people have prescient dreams. Some people have made scientific breakthroughs in dreams. Edgar Cacye tapped into some kind of knowledge field in his sleep. I was visited by an angel in a dream. And, I have a lifelong learning process going on in my dreams. For example, through many falling dreams I have learned to fly, learning to fly, I have come to recognize that I am able to fly when I have a falling dream, which means that I am dreaming. Through this I have become a lucid dreamer, and am improving in my ability to know when I am dreaming, and just last week I realized I was in a bad dream, and thought, but the thing is, how to wake myself up? How do I do it? And, through a physical effort, I deliberately came back into my body and woke myself up.

I also am hoping to explore death and leaving the body in dreams, as I have certain terrifying dreams in which I am being suffocated, one way or another. Generally, I panic and soon awaken, but I am hoping to muster the courage and presence of mind to not abandon the dream, to stick with it, and overcome my fear of death. It may take years. The content of the dreams are not important, but coming back to the same important processes is.

When one realizes that one is dreaming, there is the choice to keep dreaming and just enjoy the situation.

One time, I dreamed that I was dying of a heart attack, on a lawn on a sunny day. Since the situation of the death (not suffocation which I can't seem to stand) was not so terrifying, I decided, hey, I'll just go with it. Although I did not realize I was dreaming. Unfortunately, as I surrendered to death I awoke.
Truth is a pathless land.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Kevin Solway »

mikiel wrote:
God is the doer of all things, both good and evil...."
. . . don't blame God.
Your argument is irrational. The truth that God is the doer of all things does not equate to "blaming".
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by mikiel »

Kevin Solway wrote:
mikiel wrote:
God is the doer of all things, both good and evil...."
. . . don't blame God.
Your argument is irrational. The truth that God is the doer of all things does not equate to "blaming".
At least this is consistent with your usual MO... cite a reply out of context, claim the truth without argument, then call me irrational.

Here again is the context of my "don't blame God" phrase:
-------------
K: "God is the doer of all things, both good and evil...."

m: "This is really stupid. The illusion of egoic "free will" is effectively the cause of suffering. You might say "The Devil made me do it" and if we were to equate egoic consciousness with this "devil"... who could argue? But don't blame God. God realization bears all good and loving fruit. And the operative dynamic here is *realization.* Ignorance... ignoring real unity consciousness also bears the bitter fruit, the denial of which is the stupidity cited above.
And previously in this thread, just to beat the dead horse here, Kevin said:
"We are speaking of causation, and God is the cause of all actions."
----------------
You totally miss the point that ignorance of God, as per egoic, unenlightened consciousness, is the *cause* of all actions that result in suffering.

Of course, ultimate Reality is that there is only God. Again, ignorance of this Reality (acting from the illusion of ego's dream) causes suffering. Is this point too subtle for you to grasp?

Simply calling me irrational does not cut the mustard.
mikiel
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Iolaus »

So Mikiel, where do you stand on the issue of free will? Because your posts indicate that we can resist and act from ignorance, that we have a choice. If suffering comes of ego and is not the doing of God, that does indicate free will.

I tend to think that we do have a choice, albeit the interplay between God and the derivative being is mysterious. Perhaps our free will is within a kind of limited sphere. I don't pretend to understand it.

I've had the thought that our only choice consists in saying yes or no to God at any moment. Surrender, or not?
Truth is a pathless land.
mikiel
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by mikiel »

Iolaus wrote:So Mikiel, where do you stand on the issue of free will? Because your posts indicate that we can resist and act from ignorance, that we have a choice. If suffering comes of ego and is not the doing of God, that does indicate free will.

I tend to think that we do have a choice, albeit the interplay between God and the derivative being is mysterious. Perhaps our free will is within a kind of limited sphere. I don't pretend to understand it.

I've had the thought that our only choice consists in saying yes or no to God at any moment. Surrender, or not?
The issue of free will vs determinism is one of the all-time favorite philosophical arguments.
On the one hand, ultimately, in the absolute sense, there is only God, so everything is caused by God. This is Kevin's simplistic argument above. This is robotic level logic without the refinements of degrees of contextual freedom in human awareness of God or the smallest acknowledgement that humans actually act do out of ignorance of God, from the illusion of egoic identity, as in my post above.
Astute philosophers call this "contextual freedom." It is technically a common sense hedge against the absolutism above. This makes sense of the human condition of ignore-ance of God, for whatever reason, "caused" by whatever circumstances.

A person can obviously excuse himself after committing the worst atrocities by claiming lack of this "contextual freedom"... that It's all God's doing and there is no such thing as personal responsibility for one's actions. Almost everyone, sans the big three here and their "followers"... and a very few at large in the world... will recognize the above as absurd... the worst kind of cop-out excuse for causing suffering out of the selfish motives of pure egocentricity.

Another tack is that God "causes" us to have the illusion of free will, so that we don't think of ourselves as merely "His" robotic atomatons.(Doing what we please in His name. So, in effect the illusion of free will, and it's results are still God's fault. Same absurdity applies. If God "causes" pseudo-free will, it's not really free will.

Again, the "critique of pure reason" here (if you "will") is that Universal Consciousness actually delegates responsibility to individuals in the form of the great mystery (to the mere logical mind), the True Gift of actual free will. The whole metaphore of "leaving the Garden of Eden" is about humanity's God given gift of freedom, even freedom to do the "un-Godly." This makes freedom a Gift that transcends "divine programing"... A concept which continues to elude the purely robotic ligical mind... like Kevin's (et. al.)
The obvious absurdities above are examples of the the limitations of "pure reason" in the "real world" where most of us live, not excusing all atrocities as acts of God as the QRS mentality must.
( A bunch of editng out "logical glitches.")
OK?
mikiel
Note: Gone again for a couple/few days... off the grid to our land trust... Center for Conscious Unity
m
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Iolaus »

Yes, OK, that sounds about right to me.
Truth is a pathless land.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Kevin Solway »

mikiel wrote:ignorance of this Reality (acting from the illusion of ego's dream) causes suffering.
If that is the point you are making, I agree with it.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by brokenhead »

Iolaus wrote:But don't you see that there is a difference between believing that one has a free will, versus thinking that whatsoever you decide to do is the right thing?

One is a path of service to self, with might making right. The other is actually neutral, but allows for either path; just to please James Hayes I will call them the paths of contraction (personal power and dominance) versus the path of expansion (an expended sense of self to include everyone).
Yes, I do see this. I hope you meant to imply that the latter is the path of service to the self, and the former actually neutral, which isn't clear from your syntax above.
brokenhead: Dreams are the mind's waste material.

Iolaus: What a shocking thing to say. Some people have prescient dreams. Some people have made scientific breakthroughs in dreams. Edgar Cacye tapped into some kind of knowledge field in his sleep. I was visited by an angel in a dream. And, I have a lifelong learning process going on in my dreams. For example, through many falling dreams I have learned to fly, learning to fly, I have come to recognize that I am able to fly when I have a falling dream, which means that I am dreaming.
I stand by my assessment, which is not entirely original with me.

When you intake food, the breakdown of that food begins in the mouth with salivase attacking carbohydrates. It continues in the stomach and is processed and separated and the nutrients absorbed and the waste is finally eliminated. I believe that during the day we are bombarded with more stimuli and information than we can analyze all at once or are ever required to analyze for our own survival. The analysis continues while we are still awake in the subconscious. During sleep, when no more external stimuli are permitted, we experience dreams. We recall only a small portion of our dreams. The ones we do recall upon waking are not usually retained the way waking memories are. It takes immediate effort of recalling them and placing them somewhere else for safekeeping. If we fail to do this, extraordinary methods such as hypnosis or meditation are required to recall them, if indeed reliable recall is possible.

I am suggesting that if dreams were not waste material, storage, recall, and analysis would be much easier and more common. If retention were as necessary as it is for external stimuli entering consciousness, it would occur more readily. Most just disappear - we see them once and they are gone forever just like excrement.

Most dreams are not only never recalled, but the ones that are are rarely interesting or easy to interpret or analyze. Most seem meaningless, even the pleasant ones.

There is nothing abnormal about wanting to examine dreams. And many people look at their own feces before flushing, much the way it is quite natural for a dog to sniff its freshly-made turd. I hear in Europe, many commodes are made with a shelf for a bowel movement to fall on prior to flushing just so that a person can look to make sure everything is copacetic.

And if there is any useful content in dreams, do not forget that in a healthy person with a healthy diet, excrement is loaded with nutrients which have not been absorbed, as a well-fed body is not 100 percent efficient at removing them from what has been ingested. Even a starving body shits out something for the flies.
The content of the dreams are not important, but coming back to the same important processes is.
My point in a nutshell.

Mind you, I am not saying the angel who has visited is not real, is other than an angel, or is insignificant. More likely, that angel is there when you are awake and his input lost in the harsh glare of daylight. Upon encountering him in your dream, you are likely to be more highly alert to your circumstances and surroundings and what you permit into your psyche when you are awake. This is not unlike your reaction would be if you noticed something unusual in your stool, such as a load of worms or a particularly foul odor. In such a case you may watch your diet more closely or avoid the type of food that caused the unusually offensive bowel movement.
One time, I dreamed that I was dying of a heart attack, on a lawn on a sunny day. Since the situation of the death (not suffocation which I can't seem to stand) was not so terrifying, I decided, hey, I'll just go with it. Although I did not realize I was dreaming. Unfortunately, as I surrendered to death I awoke.
Or fortunately. You know what they say about dying within a dream, that it presages your actual, immanent demise.

I don't think I was attempting to be shocking with my statement that dreams are mental waste, merely matter-of-fact. If you are finding yourself trying to get more out of your dreams than most other people, it could be that you are not being fully or adequately "nourished" by waking stimuli, that you are requiring, either psychologically or spiritually, more than you find yourself getting.

You say some people have prescient dreams. This isn't as mysterious or uncommon as it may first sound. If we take in external stimuli all day, every day, we can be sure that external sights and sounds which impinge on or minds is merely information getting to us of external events occurring. These external events live outside us, and are all causes which have effects which are also external to us. Much of our analysis goes on subconsciously while we are awake and during sleep. If we are called upon to relate the results or our analysis while we are awake, we give our best assessment. This often takes a prescient form. We do this every day, all the time. It is so common, we would never think of calling "prescient." If anything, we regard it as "common sense." ("If I don't fill my car today, I'm liable to run out of gas on the expressway home.") If the assessment is not required of us, we may produce it nonetheless and only become aware of it on the way out, as it is being excreted, that is, in a "prescient" dream. ("There will be a severe aftershock from yesterday's earthquake in China...")

I find my dreams interesting as well, though almost always quickly forgotten. I also find that if I go over them upon waking in order to relive them or remember them, I almost always change them. I refashion them into something more coherent, the way I would if I were to relate them to another person. I alter them, that is, into something less like the excrement they are in their natural form, and into something less unpalettable.

But I check my poo-poo before flushing, too...
samadhi
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:08 am

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by samadhi »

Kevin,
God is the doer of all things, both good and evil.
I see mikiel already took you to school on this. Enough said.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by brokenhead »

Jamesh wrote:That would seem the most likely. There may be an infinite number of "big bangs", each with their own "universe", which are all part of the larger Universe.

[re - big bangs within sub-verses. yeah I agree, but otherwise, nope. You didn't actually respond precisely to what I was asking]


My intuition tells me a little differently. Though perhaps this is just a failing of my intuition.

If the style of the universe we observe, is infinite in extent, then in all moments there are an infinity of persons called James Hayes, typing this exact response, and there are an infinity of persons called James Hayes typing an almost exact match, and so on.

Nope, I do not accept that, but I cannot isolate the logic that would prove this matter either way.

What I believe is that there is only one universe, and it is the one we observe, however what we observe is not infinite. The causes are infinite, but the effect is not. We only observe effects. No effect can possibly be infinite. The only effect we consider to be infinite is The Totality.

I believe in an hierarchical physical structure, that ends in the oneness of The Totality. However even this creates a problem. Though the base of everything is clearly infinite, and so to must be the initial effect, be it space or time or space-time, Zeno's paradoxes show us how that any division/addition of infinity into effects leaves an infinity of such divisions/additions, so at no point does a Totality arise. This prevention of "addition-to-oneness" is not necessarily a "wrong" thing, as perhaps that is what is needed to prevent a static whole.

We can however see that this division of infinity does occur, and with each division a lesser quantity results as an effects. eg. There is far more existence of light/radiation, than atoms, there are far more atoms than stars, there are far more stars than galaxies.

What this mathematical problem/effect actually makes me think is that IMAGINED Totality when viewed as the uppermost level of physical construction, when viewed as the outcome of infinite division/addition of the commencing infinity, then the Totality itself is simply one of the fundamental forces. It is the end infinity of absolute oneness that can never be reached in a physical manner, as opposed to the type of infinity that results from nothingness being an impossibility. Nothingness in any non-infinite form is without any shred of doubt a logical impossibility, but there may be a nothingness that is infinite, which would mean it is a part of all physical things.

At present I couldn’t be bothered wording this to make more sense. I guess what I'm saying is that the Totality is the effect of All (the beginning of existence) AND Nothing (the outcome of physical existence), at the same time.

In saying the above one must note that I am not suggesting (though it appears otherwise) any form of linear path whereby the universe fundamentally begins from ONE force, The Infinite MANY, and ends with another, The Infinite ONE. No, there is no start and finish to reality - at all times both are causally creating every physical thing.

Just posting this mess in case I feel like revisit this henid conceptualisation, later on. Mind you all conceptualisations bout the concept of infinity are of the henid varieity.
God help me, I think I just understood this.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Iolaus »

Brokenhead,

Very well done post, and I could almost agree with it...
I am suggesting that if dreams were not waste material, storage, recall, and analysis would be much easier and more common. If retention were as necessary as it is for external stimuli entering consciousness, it would occur more readily.
Much of our waking life is waste material from the point of absolute survival. That is why our brains have a default mode which reduces the richness of our world down to a cartoonlike version. Altered states of consciousness give us so much more, whether it arrives via trance, shamanism, mushrooms or other plants, or LSD. Or just out of the blue.
There is nothing abnormal about wanting to examine dreams. And many people look at their own feces before flushing,
I have quite a lot more respect for the totality of the human mind, and its mysteries, and its capabilities. We are strangely captive in this strange life we find ourselves in, the mind has many powers, they are held in the subconscious, and states in and around sleep are tantalizing.
I hear in Europe, many commodes are made with a shelf for a bowel movement to fall on prior to flushing just so that a person can look to make sure everything is copacetic.
Ha, ha, I've seen them, but I suppose it is simply a different design.
More likely, that angel is there when you are awake and his input lost in the harsh glare of daylight.
I am quite sure of it.
You know what they say about dying within a dream, that it presages your actual, immanent demise.
Oh, no, I had simply heard that you can't dream that you actually die. But I also heard you can't dream that you fall and go splat, but I have.
If you are finding yourself trying to get more out of your dreams than most other people, it could be that you are not being fully or adequately "nourished" by waking stimuli,
I don't try at all, have never studied my dreams or written them down. It has taken decades for the dream life to slowly converge into a meaning that has slightly united my conscious and subconscious minds. Fear of death is a big issue with me, and in my dreams I work on it in very different ways than in waking life. What I think is interesting is that without trying at all, eventually I find that my dream life is an important aspect of my overall life.
Truth is a pathless land.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by brokenhead »

Iolaus wrote:Much of our waking life is waste material from the point of absolute survival. That is why our brains have a default mode which reduces the richness of our world down to a cartoonlike version. Altered states of consciousness give us so much more, whether it arrives via trance, shamanism, mushrooms or other plants, or LSD. Or just out of the blue.
Yes, much of our waking life is wate material from the point of absolute survival, just as a lot of what we ingest as food is junk and even bad for you. Even so, our waking life is where we fight our battles for physical survival, whatever form they may take. We do not do this while sleeping and dreaming.

As to the altered states, you won't get much argument from me, as many of my other posts will attest. I hasten to point out, however, that our "default mode" is default for a reason, and that the doors of perception should remain on their hinges.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Can causality be infinite?

Post by Sapius »

David: A tree can tell you everything there is to know about the nature of reality. Trees are great sages, albeit unintentionally so.
Sure, UG believed something similar too. However, I’m glad to hear you speak of ‘intentions’, an aspect you confirm trees don’t have. So would you say that it is the aspect of having ‘intentions’ that creates a possibility of an individual thing being un-sagely? Does it have that freedom unlike a tree?
People can value whatever they like. They are caused to value whatever they like. Nonetheless, there is a difference between valuing truth and not valuing truth. Different awarenesses and consequences are generated.
The problem is that it is not up to ‘their’ liking; is it now? Has causality taken a holiday there?
True, it is impossible to work for or against causation. However, it is possible to work for or against consciousness of causation.
So there is some individual ‘thing’ related freedom after all, which would then give credibility to comparative conclusions through individual reasoning.
Sapius: I wonder why we necessarily yearn to have “something” Absolute, and not logically accept that existence is but in and off relativity, and asking if that statement itself is Absolute in any other sense which is beyond relativity, is illogical. But no complains really

David: The main reason is to ensure that one's mind is no longer deceiving itself. To cease leading a nonsensical life. To truly begin existing.
Agreed; “to cease leading a nonsensical life” is a good advice, but “to truly begin existing” is one’s mind deceiving its self.

Kevin: God is the doer of all things, both good and evil.
Well, a ‘doer’ implies a thing having the capacity of doing something that is NOT it itself; so what isn’t God according to your definition!? Hence God could not be capable of doing any thing at all. God is nothing without the ALL, and the ALL does not make it any kind of “God” either. Why in the blooming daisies can we not get rid of that word I wonder!? Hasn’t it created enough delusions of ultimate grandeur!?

Poetic expressions are all well and fine, but they can reflect philosophical misconceptions, so in my opinion one should refrain from it, but of course, eventually, each one to his own, so it depends on what one makes of it.
---------
Locked