daramantus wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:16 pm
Greta wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:41 pm
There is a paradox. Everything is one, yet separate. Those who cannot accept paradoxes will tie themselves in metaphysical knots trying to argue for one aspect or the other.
Pragmatists claim that oneness is illusory because most parts of the universe don't communicate with each other. Romantics claim that separation is an illusion because all parts of the universe are connected, even if only with "neighbours". Each side makes correct observations but incorrect resultant assertions.
The human example suggests that, over time, reality is becoming more interconnected (at least within galaxies) as it cools.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ii ... &q&f=false
Quarks bond to form protons and neutrons, which bond to form atomic nuclei, which bond with electrons to form atoms, which bond with each other to form molecules. Atoms, ions and molecules in larger numbers bond into a considerable variety of organised matter forms - clouds of gas, liquids and solids of various sizes, from dist to planetary subsystems, to planets, stars and galaxies.
The living cell is an aggregate of atoms and molecules in a bonded structure of liquid-solid form. Cells bond to form colonies, organelles, organs and organisms. Organisms of a given species bond to form breeding groups and societies. Human organisms bond to form polities and civilisations.
I would also add that civilisations are bonding via telecommunications and the internet into something that I don't think we have a name for yet, other than "humanity" (or some epithet). Barring accident, it would seem that galaxies left alone for a long time will tend to become ever more integrated, more "one". "Oneness" in a meaningful / practical sense seems more an ideal or future possibility than a current reality.
every thing is not 'one' or 'two' or 'three' so, the number analogy for reality is ridiculous. a thing is ONE, two things are TWO, and from that, you see how wrong is to claim anything about any set of things using a single number, and outside these set of things other set of "things" (by the sake of simplicity calling "things"). there is no paradox. the paradox is being created by dontaskme, by his wrong premise you already gave another one which is also wrong. he is saying like if space was connected integrated with us, or some bs like that, but that's clearly wrong. since empty space exist because objects are separate from each other, distant from each other, so it's completely correct to say that we are IN space. and space is not an 'empty' "something" connected to us. it's empty nothing, even tho space is not a thing, objects are things which separate themselves, which we observe.
Did you see the part where I agreed with DAM's ideas? No? Me neither
. DAM and I had our big argument about this some time ago. We are each most familiar with each other's worldviews, but neither of us achieved much understanding of the other's mind so we leave each other alone to do out thang. Every now and then someone tires of the "it's all an illusion" line and has it out with her as I did. At present it is your turn.
Seriously, space actually does not exist, at least not in this universe (a little reminder of late forum member, Obvious Leo, who loved to press this point). Space only exists in a relative sense. For instance, you might have some "space" in your house. Of course the "empty" space is not empty, but filled with the contents of the atmosphere - air, other gases, dust, bacteria and viruses, magnetic fields and other low level radiation (including photons of light), the Earth's gravitational field, neutrinos, dark matter, etc.
What of the cosmos? Again, there is no true space - just a chaotic blend of various fields of gravity, EM energy and dark matter, like ripples in an ocean. Einstein demonstrated that space has substance (hence it can be stretched and bent), so the universe can in fact be looked at as one thing
- one ocean of galaxies, stars and black holes. Instead of water connecting the entities it's a mix of various energies, forces and free subatomic waves and particles. So yes, space is
logically integrated with us (and I suspect could be much more so in the future).
The notion of oneness, however, is just a universal perspective - as opposed to the perspective from the point of view of a galactic cluster, galaxy, solar system, planet, species, nation, culture, subculture, family, individual, body system, organs, microbiome, molecule, atom or, of course, a subatomic wavicle
Which to focus on? I'm interested in a few of those levels, as probably are you, but some such as DAM are more specialised in their interests.
Clearly DAM, and others who embrace the universal/God perspective, are seeking the ultimate, skipping the intermediaries. That is the emotional approach - to simply reach blindly upwards in faith. Personally, I find the details of science more stimulating and inspiring, but each to their own.