The whole is boundless

[seeds]

Nothingness cannot occupy space. In your picture it does.

You told me that you read the OP of my "Burning Bush" thread, in which case, you already know my stance regarding the ontology of the universe.

However, coming at this from the perspective of hardcore materialism, this image we've been discussing...



...is a visual representation of a bubble of reality that, at this present moment (and based on pre-James Webb telescope discoveries), is estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter.

We're talking about a 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, was allegedly (and literally) smaller than the tiny dot between these two brackets [.].

And the point is that the blackened area of the above image, along with the blackened area in the following gif that depicts the moment when the infinitesimal singularity [.] began expanding,...



...are both visual representations of whatever it is that is forever making room (relenting/giving-way/opening up, etc.) for the ever-expanding bubble of the universe.

And seeing how the proponents of hardcore materialism allege that time, space, and matter didn't even exist prior to the initial expansion of the infinitesimal singularity [.],...

...then what else other than "absolute nothingness" could those blackened areas be called?

Btw, don't get hung up on the details of those rudimentary images. Instead, use your imagination to peer-out into the farthest reaches of the actual universe, to what, logically, must be a light barrier, and try to picture what the ever-expanding light barrier (the metaphorical "film" of the bubble) is expanding into.

Indeed, if not into an infinite and "boundless" nothingness that could never be filled to capacity no matter how many universes come into existence,...

...then what else could it be?
_______

Well, spacetime is fundamental and it is boundless.

If it is possible that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness as I put-forth in my "Burning Bush" thread, then the "spacetime" aspect of this universe is "bounded" in the same way that your own mind is bounded.

In other words, both are bounded by reason of the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that makes up the sum total of each individual mind itself.

You can show that time cannot begin to exist. I showed this here.

And I agree with you that time did not begin to exist at the moment of the alleged Big Bang.

As mentioned earlier, I am simply pointing out what the hardcore materialists seem to believe.

Furthermore, in this post here - https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewto ... 78#p390978 - I too tried to make it clear that time had no "beginning."

However, if you think about it, there is a mystery as to what speed time would be moving if there were no minds and clocks to sense and measure its passing.

Space is another part of the spacetime manifold therefore space cannot begin to exist as well.

Your own mind is like a separate dimension of reality (a "parallel universe," if you will) that contains its own autonomous spatial arena in which the phenomenal features of your thoughts and dreams exist and play-out.

Clearly, your mind had a beginning.

Well, I suggest that the same applies to the universe, which is simply the mind of a higher Being who also seems to have had a beginning just like us.

Indeed, I pointed that out in the following excerpt from an alternate thread...

"...You need to realize that every time you close your eyes to think or dream, you are peering into what appears to be an infinite "spatial arena" (your mind) that is filled with billions of holographic-like manifestations of "reality"...

...all of which, if projected back in time, will converge and disappear into a "single dimensionless point" that represents the moment when your mind (and "I Am-ness") first came into existence.

And the point is that I suggest we are seeing something similar to that when we project the holographic-like features of the universe back in time..."

Spacetime simply existed since the beginning of time.

What?

Be careful how you word things, because I thought we both agreed that time had no "beginning."

Now you can fill up the spacetime with stuff. If all that exists is within the limited area called bubble then the rest of spacetime is empty. The area of spacetime that is empty is the black area in your picture.

Again, you are confusing "spacetime," also known as the "fabric of spacetime"...

(which can not only be thought of as a "fabric" from which the phenomenal features of the universe, along with the interstitial areas of empty space between those features are woven, but also as what binds the bubble of the universe together into one cohesive whole unto itself)

...again, you are confusing that with "absolute nothingness" (or "void," as mentioned by Sculptor).

They are not the same.

Can't you just be happy knowing that you are correct in asserting that the ultimate "whole" (or the "ALL-THAT-IS") is indeed "boundless"?
_______

[Sculptor]

So, the universe is surrounded by void?

I think we are now going round in circles.

See above.

You said that the universe is bounded by the void! Didn't you?

Yes

[bahman]

You told me that you read the OP of my "Burning Bush" thread, in which case, you already know my stance regarding the ontology of the universe.

However, coming at this from the perspective of hardcore materialism, this image we've been discussing...



...is a visual representation of a bubble of reality that, at this present moment (and based on pre-James Webb telescope discoveries), is estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter.

We're talking about a 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, was allegedly (and literally) smaller than the tiny dot between these two brackets [.].

And the point is that the blackened area of the above image, along with the blackened area in the following gif that depicts the moment when the infinitesimal singularity [.] began expanding,...



...are both visual representations of whatever it is that is forever making room (relenting/giving-way/opening up, etc.) for the ever-expanding bubble of the universe.

And seeing how the proponents of hardcore materialism allege that time, space, and matter didn't even exist prior to the initial expansion of the infinitesimal singularity [.],...

...then what else other than "absolute nothingness" could those blackened areas be called?

Btw, don't get hung up on the details of those rudimentary images. Instead, use your imagination to peer-out into the farthest reaches of the actual universe, to what, logically, must be a light barrier, and try to picture what the ever-expanding light barrier (the metaphorical "film" of the bubble) is expanding into.

Indeed, if not into an infinite and "boundless" nothingness that could never be filled to capacity no matter how many universes come into existence,...

...then what else could it be?
_______

Well, spacetime is fundamental and it is boundless.

If it is possible that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness as I put-forth in my "Burning Bush" thread, then the "spacetime" aspect of this universe is "bounded" in the same way that your own mind is bounded.

I don't think that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness. I however think that the mind is omnipresent in spacetime. I proved it here. So the mind is boundless since spacetime is boundless.

In other words, both are bounded by reason of the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that makes up the sum total of each individual mind itself.

Why do you think that the life essence must be finite?

You can show that time cannot begin to exist. I showed this here.

And I agree with you that time did not begin to exist at the moment of the alleged Big Bang.

As mentioned earlier, I am simply pointing out what the hardcore materialists seem to believe.

Furthermore, in this post here - https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewto ... 78#p390978 - I too tried to make it clear that time had no "beginning."

However, if you think about it, there is a mystery as to what speed time would be moving if there were no minds and clocks to sense and measure its passing.

Time has a beginning. It however didn't began to exist.

Space is another part of the spacetime manifold therefore space cannot begin to exist as well.

Your own mind is like a separate dimension of reality (a "parallel universe," if you will) that contains its own autonomous spatial arena in which the phenomenal features of your thoughts and dreams exist and play-out.

Clearly, your mind had a beginning.

Well, I suggest that the same applies to the universe, which is simply the mind of a higher Being who also seems to have had a beginning just like us.

Indeed, I pointed that out in the following excerpt from an alternate thread...

What do you mean with the mind? To me, the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause.

"...You need to realize that every time you close your eyes to think or dream, you are peering into what appears to be an infinite "spatial arena" (your mind) that is filled with billions of holographic-like manifestations of "reality"...

...all of which, if projected back in time, will converge and disappear into a "single dimensionless point" that represents the moment when your mind (and "I Am-ness") first came into existence.

And the point is that I suggest we are seeing something similar to that when we project the holographic-like features of the universe back in time..."

Spacetime simply existed since the beginning of time.

What?

Be careful how you word things, because I thought we both agreed that time had no "beginning."

Time has a beginning. It didn't begin to exist though.

Now you can fill up the spacetime with stuff. If all that exists is within the limited area called bubble then the rest of spacetime is empty. The area of spacetime that is empty is the black area in your picture.

Again, you are confusing "spacetime," also known as the "fabric of spacetime"...

(which can not only be thought of as a "fabric" from which the phenomenal features of the universe, along with the interstitial areas of empty space between those features are woven, but also as what binds the bubble of the universe together into one cohesive whole unto itself)

...again, you are confusing that with "absolute nothingness" (or "void," as mentioned by Sculptor).

They are not the same.

Can't you just be happy knowing that you are correct in asserting that the ultimate "whole" (or the "ALL-THAT-IS") is indeed "boundless"?
_______

Yes, the whole is boundless but the black regime in your picture cannot be nothingness. Nothingness cannot have a geometry or occupy room.

[bahman]

I think we are now going round in circles.

See above.

You said that the universe is bounded by the void! Didn't you?

Yes

But the void cannot have any geometry or occupy room.

[Sculptor]

You said that the universe is bounded by the void! Didn't you?

Yes

But the void cannot have any geometry or occupy room.

Yes.
The whole is as big as it is and no more - obviously.
If it is bounded by SOMETHING then it cannot be "The whole".

If it were bounded by something then that something would have to be included as part of the universe.

[seeds]

Yes, the whole is boundless but the black regime in your picture cannot be nothingness. Nothingness cannot have a geometry or occupy room.

Well, first of all, it's not "my" picture, for I nicked it from the Internet.

And secondly, I told you not to get hung up on the details of the picture and the fact that the picture is presenting the nothingness as being something with "geometry," because you are correct in pointing out that the nothingness (the void) has no geometry.

And that's why I told you to use your imagination to try and picture what it is that the light barrier - or the outer "film" of the bubble - is expanding into,...

...for, again, it appears to be "something" that no matter how big the universe continues to grow, or even if 10^500, or 10^500,000 new universe bubbles were suddenly added to the mix,...



...it (the boundless void) could never run out of room for more, for it represents an existing feature of the "whole" that fully embodies what the word "infinity" truly means.
_______

[Age]

To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

Do you ever notice that your proofs tend to be just word games?

Game? Huh?

This proof is about how we use the word "whole". It doesn't prove anything about reality.

It does if you understand it.

And we can talk about "the whole watermelon" which is bounded. So this "proof" doesn't even cover all the various ways that the word is used.

Even the whole watermelon is boundless. Even the whole you is boundless.

Really?

If yes, then what makes 'you', and/or 'watermelons' separate from all of the other named and labeled 'things'?

If you, and/or watermelons, are not 'bounded' then you, and/or watermelons just go on forever, and eternally.

[Age]

I am correct as well.

Of course you are correct, "the whole" means everything. (Except when it doesn't.)

You have successfully used the dictionary.

The dictionary does not say that the whole is boundless!

The dictionary and absolutely every thing else also does not say that watermelons nor you are boundless, except, of course, for the one you here known as "bahman".

[Age]

So what? The dictionary does not tell that the whole is boundless.

Your "proof" is based on the idea that if there is something else beyond "the whole" then it is bounded.

My proof is based on the idea that if the whole is bounded then it is bounded by something else then what we call whole is not the whole.

How does this fit in with your claim that you and watermelons are also boundless?

[Age]

Your "proof" is based on the idea that if there is something else beyond "the whole" then it is bounded.

My proof is based on the idea that if the whole is bounded then it is bounded by something else then what we call whole is not the whole.

Just for the sake of visualization purposes, imagine that the blue bubble depicted below...



...somehow not only metaphorically represents the absolute sum total of all life, mind, and matter in however many universes might exist (if indeed there are more than just this one),...

...but also represents all possible transcendent (or alternate) dimensions of reality (i.e., heavens, hells, nirvanas, bardos, etc., etc., - if such exist).

In which case, could that blue bubble depicted above represent the "whole" of which you speak?
_______

Of course not.

One would have to be absolutely CLOSED to just begin to imagine, visualize, think, or believe that it could.

What part of the 'whole' word are you not understanding here? 'Whole' means absolutely EVERY thing, and, obviously, not just SOME things.

[Age]

To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

The known universe is bound by the Shannon Number, which apparently is bound by Go.

Go
https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/sto ... hess-moves

The 'known universe', which is always changing, and/or growing which an every changing, and/or growing knowledge of information, is bounded, or limited by, you human beings very limited way of thinking, looking, seeing, and/or limited by your continually growing knowledge base.

So, of course and obviously, the 'bounded and limited known universe' is bounded, by you human beings, only.

The actual Universe, Itself, however, is not bounded.

And, by the way, is already known, as well. But, obviously, not by you human beings here, in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

My proof is based on the idea that if the whole is bounded then it is bounded by something else then what we call whole is not the whole.

Just for the sake of visualization purposes, imagine that the blue bubble depicted below...



...somehow not only metaphorically represents the absolute sum total of all life, mind, and matter in however many universes might exist (if indeed there are more than just this one),...

...but also represents all possible transcendent (or alternate) dimensions of reality (i.e., heavens, hells, nirvanas, bardos, etc., etc., - if such exist).

In which case, could that blue bubble depicted above represent the "whole" of which you speak?
_______

No, the whole is the blue part plus the black part that surrounds the blue part.

It makes some wonder how something so completely blatantly obvious was not comprehended, before.

The actual and irrefutable answer, however, is absolutely blatantly obvious, as well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

Note 'assume' and 'imagination'.

You can use assume in both sentences.

What is 'Boundless' is ultimately 'bounded'.

What?

Your thinking is too narrow, shallow and rigid.

As Phyllo had stated, all your above is mere 'word games' or language games[Wittgenstein].
As such 'the whole is boundless' is bounded by the rules of the 'language game' you are using above in assuming and imaginings.

It would be more effective for you to state, [example]
'the whole is boundless' so, an omnipresent God or Mind exists or something to this effect.
then you should provide evidences to justify your above example.

Notes:

Mereology (from the Greek μερος, ‘part’) is the theory of parthood relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

Here are comments from an AIChatBot;

The statement about the whole being bounded or boundless is full of nuances and can be approached from various perspectives. Here are some possible scenarios and alternative views to consider:

Contradictions and Limitations:

Circular reasoning: As pointed out, if the "whole" is defined as "everything," then by definition it cannot be bounded by anything else. Assuming it is bounded introduces a contradiction.
Infinite regression: If something bounds the whole, then that "something" becomes part of the whole, requiring another boundary, leading to an infinite loop.
Language limitations: Our language and concepts might be inadequate to truly grasp the nature of the whole. Terms like "boundless" and "bounded" might be human constructs that don't accurately reflect the reality that exists beyond our comprehension.

Nuanced Perspectives:

Multi-dimensionality: Imagine the whole as a multi-dimensional entity. While boundness might apply within some dimensions, others could be boundless, creating a complex interplay of limitations and openness.
Dynamic boundaries: Perhaps the boundaries of the whole are not static but constantly shifting and evolving. What appears bounded or boundless at one point might change in another perspective or timeframe.
Levels of wholeness: Maybe there are different levels or scales of wholeness, each with its own limitations and relationships with other levels. What appears bounded from one level might be boundless from another.

Beyond Frameworks:
Direct experience: Some spiritual or mystical traditions emphasize direct experience of the whole as transcending mental frameworks and categories like boundedness. It might be beyond our usual ways of thinking and reasoning.
Paradoxical nature: Perhaps the whole is both bounded and boundless at the same time, a paradox beyond our usual logic. Accepting this paradox might be more accurate than trying to fit it into our limited categories.

Openness to mystery: Ultimately, the nature of the whole might be a mystery that we can explore and contemplate but never fully comprehend. Embracing this open-endedness could be more productive than seeking definitive answers.

The best approach might be to remain open to the possibilities and explore the question from different angles, accepting that there might be no definitive answer in our usual linguistic and conceptual frameworks.

It's important to engage in critical thinking and explore different perspectives to deepen your understanding of this complex topic. Remember, the more you explore, the more nuanced and multifaceted your view of the "whole" will become.

Another version

.... a complex philosophical question with various nuanced interpretations and perspectives. Here are some possible scenarios and alternative views:

On the Definition of "Whole":
Yes, the "whole" by definition could be bounded. If we define the "whole" as a specific entity with a clear boundary (e.g., the universe, a closed system), then it's naturally limited by its edge. However, this definition is restrictive and depends on our perspective.

The "whole" might be inherently unbounded. If we consider the "whole" as encompassing everything, including the concept of "boundless," then it transcends any limit. This perspective emphasizes the infinite nature of existence and the limitations of human comprehension.
The "whole" could be both bounded and unbounded simultaneously. This might seem paradoxical, but it's possible to imagine a system with internal boundaries while still being part of a larger, boundless whole. For example, atoms are bounded structures within the vastness of the universe.
On the Continuity of Reality:

If reality is continuous, then boundless_ness is a possibility. This aligns with the perspective of the "whole" being inherently unbounded. A continuous, uninterrupted existence wouldn't have inherent boundaries, although we might impose them for practical purposes.
Even with continuity, boundaries could be emergent properties. Even within a continuous system, boundaries can arise as emergent properties due to interactions and complexity. For example, in a fluid, the surface tension creates a perceived boundary between the liquid and air.

On the Framework of Knowledge:

Boundaries are often constructed within a specific framework. Our language, scientific models, and cultural narratives all influence how we perceive and understand boundaries. These frameworks can be helpful for understanding the world, but they can also lead to limiting our perspective.

Beyond frameworks, boundless_ness might be ineffable. Some argue that the true nature of the "whole" or "boundless" lies beyond the limitations of our conceptual frameworks. It may be something we can experience but not fully grasp with language or logic.

Ultimately, the question of "boundedness" vs. "boundless_ness" is an open one with no definitive answer. It depends on our definitions, our assumptions about reality, and the limitations of our knowledge. Engaging with different perspectives and exploring various frameworks can deepen our understanding of this complex concept.

[Age]

To prove it let's assume that the whole is bounded. But that means that the whole is bounded by something else. That means that what we call the whole is not the whole but something bigger. So whatever we imagine as the whole is bounded by something else unless we accept that the whole is boundless.

The known universe is bound by the Shannon Number, which apparently is bound by Go.

Go
https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/sto ... hess-moves

Good to know these things. I am however talking about the whole rather than the known universe.

Which I thought was absolutely completely blatantly obvious, as well.

[Age]

What's the difference?

*

After asking you the question, it stuck in my craw, so I’ll offer up some more good things to know.

I think that …

- Known and unknown are not descriptions of the universe. The universe simply, is.

But, obviously what is described, referenced, and/or defined by the words 'known universe' is limited or bounded by what is 'currently known'.

However, in saying that, if the Universe is 'known' to be unlimited and/or unbounded, then the 'known Universe', Itself, is not limited nor bounded by any thing.

- Knowing and unknowing describes any particular person.

Yes, in a way.

- Because of that, for any particular person the whole, or totality, is both the known and freedom from attachment to the known.

But the words 'whole' or 'totality' refer to absolutely every thing, even things that may well, not yet, be known, by any one.

- Freedom from attachment to the known, opens the door for The Supreme Ordering Principle of the Universe (i.e., Logos, i.e., entropy’s balance) to transform the infinite potentiality of the unknown (known as emptiness) into manifestation.
- Human capacity is a catalyst for this transformation, and although animals exhibit some creative capacity, they are not agents of change for they are attached to the known, an ignorance that is no fault of their own.
- In this way, man and wooman are agents of the ordering principle that permeates all life and inorganic matter, and they are agents because of the inherent capacity for non-attachment to the known.
- In other words, attachment to the known is whole's, boundary.