There was a beginning

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: There was a beginning

Post by Scott Mayers »

AlexW wrote: Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:13 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:08 am Unless you contain and can access an infinite memory of existence, you have no reason to INFER that the world existed by 'direct experience' prior to your birth.
True.
But, based on DE, you don't even have any reason to infer that any separate thing exists - a reason/interpretation only arises once DE is conceptualised (via thinking).
You actually do. For a simple example, you can hear and feel something simultaneously yet distinguish them as different senses. This works also within each single complex sense. The ear interprets two distinct sounds because it has AT THE LEAST two distinct triggering parts within the inner ear that vibrates at different frequencies.

What we do not have is a 'direct' means of interpreting THAT we existed prior to our existence. It could be the case that we actually DO exist but forgot, like if our conscious mind went from one whole being that dies at the very moment you transitioned over to this new mind. That would move this discussion into speculation only.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:08 am That state, with respect to who YOU are (not merely the atoms that make up your body), came from NOTHING.
This is also just something that you infer...

Have you ever experienced "nothing"?
If not, how do you even know nothing "existing" is a possible option?

I would rather say: All things are mind-made (conceptual interpretation of DE) - but DE itself is not of things and is also not a thing itself.
This doesn't mean that DE is "nothing" (at least not based on how we conventionally define the term).
I think it is important to differentiate between "not a thing" and "nothing" - DE is not a thing, but not nothing.
Of ALL the possible things you COULD infer, "nothing" is most universally inferred. That is, if 'nothing' itself has no meaning, you can't presume anything LACKS existence, not even 'nothing'. Thus nothing still wins in its inclusion by default.

On the last line of your quote, a relative non-existing state has an implicit question ABOUT something particular such that if you asked if something particular is experienced by you, you can DENY that it is the case. This is the difference between 'not' versus 'non-' (all of what is not). Normally, 'not' is used but means 'non-' for many logical systems. This is properly called the "complement". So you can say that given absolutely everything, is there a real 'complement', namely absolutely nothing? You are asserting NO without concern to recognizing that I can ADD no thing more to totality OR to something infinitely and still get the same meaning of "nothing" for both.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:08 am The unique property of "Absolute Nothingness" is that it is 'nothing' ANYWHERE.
No - within the absolute there is no location at all - there is no "anywhere".
You cannot (or rather: should not) affix conceptual/dualistic attributes to the absolute.
So, if one given one exact location in space relative to all other things, how do you describe anything at all? We use two points to describe anything, both 'nothing' in themselves yet they can and do manifest something descriptive. Try, for instance asking how you can place two points NEXT to each other. If the breadth of each point is zero, how can the breadth of two such identical points manifest into anything either?
I don't know who wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:08 am As such, unless you have proof that you lived eternally, you came from 'nothing'.
The real "you" (which is reality/the absolute itself) didn't come from anything (nor did not not come from anything) - it neither is, no(r) is it not.
What you are doing is similar to the attempt of describing "infinity" by reverting to the idea that it is a collection of a very, very large amount of separate things...
But "infinity" (the absolute) is not a collection of an infinite amount of separate things, it is the necessary result of there being no separate things – no separation – in the first place. Infinity is not a very, very large – unlimited – extension of space, it is no space, zero extension.
The same is true for eternity, it is not a very, very long – unlimited – amount of time, it is no time, it is zero time.
In a nighttime dream: How large is the room you seem to be standing in?
I guess we agree that its physical extension is zero. But – and you might not believe it – the same is the case for what we call "reality".
Now you appear to be agreeing in context that "nothing exists" AND that it is also "something". I already understand this. The argument for me is that "abolute nothing" IS also "absolute something" AND "absolute everything". Thus Absolute Nothing exists. ONLY if you are restricted to assume "Absolutely Something", you have to be able to SPECIFY what this 'something' is (as opposed to nothing nor everything).

[NOTE: I quoted "I don't know who" as the quote you mentioned because it was separated from your quote and yet not my own response either. If that was someone else other than you, let me know. I also corrected (in red) to the meaning I assumed was meant as "nor" rather than "not".]
AlexW
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: There was a beginning

Post by AlexW »

Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 am You actually do. For a simple example, you can hear and feel something simultaneously yet distinguish them as different senses. This works also within each single complex sense. The ear interprets two distinct sounds because it has AT THE LEAST two distinct triggering parts within the inner ear that vibrates at different frequencies.
Diversity is not separation - just because there is a variety of color, sounds, smells etc this does not mean that there is actually any real separation.
There is only "implied separation" - it is only thought that states: "this color/sound is separate from another color/sound", whereas in reality the field of color/sound is one unbroken whole.
Look at your surroundings - there is color "everywhere" - its actually impossible to have "empty spots" - its the same for the field of sound/smell/taste/touch - there are no gaps or boundaries in these fields other than the one that we think up (by defining certain parts of these continuous fields as a certain "thing/object").
While this wholeness seems to be true for each sense it might seem (for our dualistic minds) that there is still the separation between eg sound and vision - color is not sound... - but in truth all fields are one in the field of direct experience (which is what consciousness actually is - one unbroken "field").
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 am On the last line of your quote, a relative non-existing state has an implicit question ABOUT something particular
All states are for separate objects existing in time and space - but what if there are no such separate objects in the first place?
If there are no objects then talking about existence or non-existence is perfectly useless... what would it be that exists or not exists? There is nothing there to grasp and affix any attribute to...
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 am So, if one given one exact location in space relative to all other things, how do you describe anything at all?
Just as we describe "things in space" right now. We place a conceptual wrapper over non-conceptual reality - we create/imagine things from what is not a thing (from DE).
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 am We use two points to describe anything, both 'nothing' in themselves yet they can and do manifest something descriptive.
Exactly - they manifest something "descriptive", we create an interpretation (we do this for all so called "things"), but this description is not what is actually directly experienced (it is not reality).
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 am Now you appear to be agreeing in context that "nothing exists" AND that it is also "something".
No... what I am saying this that the relativistic universe (all our interpretations and descriptions of reality) is born from, and is nothing but, thought (it only exists inside our heads). Reality, here/now, is neither nothing nor something, it neither exists nor does it not exists - it is not "part of" our conceptual world (but the conceptual world, as illusory as it might be, is born from this very foundation)
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 am The argument for me is that "abolute nothing" IS also "absolute something" AND "absolute everything". Thus Absolute Nothing exists.
Again, you are using terms like "existence" for reality, but this reality is not within the grasp of concepts. There is no conceptual description that defines it - and if you think you have found one, you have already limited the limitless - you have turned it into an object (which it is not... yet we live our lives as if we, ourselves, were such objects that interact with thousands of other objects...)
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: There was a beginning

Post by Scott Mayers »

AlexW wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:29 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:16 am You actually do. For a simple example, you can hear and feel something simultaneously yet distinguish them as different senses. This works also within each single complex sense. The ear interprets two distinct sounds because it has AT THE LEAST two distinct triggering parts within the inner ear that vibrates at different frequencies.
Diversity is not separation - just because there is a variety of color, sounds, smells etc this does not mean that there is actually any real separation.
There is only "implied separation" ...
?? You didn't even closely understand. The point was about how our brain's consciousness is 'entangled' throughout. We do not have a 'center' point in the brain where consciousness derives from and have proof of this by how we can sense multiple points in space simultaneously.

But I can't be bothered to discuss this anymore. Sorry, I think I've overstayed my presence here. There is nothing I can be effective for anyone here.
Post Reply