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.AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:13 amTrue.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.
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).
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.
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.This is also just something that you infer...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.
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.
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.
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?No - within the absolute there is no location at all - there is no "anywhere".Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:08 am The unique property of "Absolute Nothingness" is that it is 'nothing' ANYWHERE.
You cannot (or rather: should not) affix conceptual/dualistic attributes to the absolute.
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).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...I don't know who wrote: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.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:08 am As such, unless you have proof that you lived eternally, you came from 'nothing'.
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".
[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".]