The whole is boundless

[phyllo]

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.

You really can't see that you're saying exactly the same thing as the dictionary?

[bahman]

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.

You really can't see that you're saying exactly the same thing as the dictionary?

And you cannot read what I said.

[phyllo]

I have said all I'm going to say.

[bahman]

I have said all I'm going to say.

Same.

[seeds]

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.

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?
_______

[Walker]

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

[bahman]

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?
_______

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

[bahman]

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.

[Walker]

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

[seeds]

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.

Good answer, bahman, for if you are including the black part that surrounds the blue part, then the "whole" is indeed boundless, for the black part represents the infinite (boundless) nothingness that is forever making room for the blue part (the part that we call "reality").

Indeed, the blue part (again, what we call "reality") is not only bounded by the black part, but, by reason of the fact that even though the substance from which reality is created, might actually be infinite - in and of itself,...

...nevertheless, whatever it (the blue part) comprises will always be contained within (forever bounded/surrounded/subsumed) by the black part, which, in a certain sense, can be thought of as being just as "real" as the blue part,...

...thus, making it an integral (and existing) aspect of what you are calling the "whole" (which is sometimes called the "ALL-THAT-IS").
_______

[bahman]

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.

Good answer, bahman, for if you are including the black part that surrounds the blue part, then the "whole" is indeed boundless, for the black part represents the infinite (boundless) nothingness that is forever making room for the blue part (the part that we call "reality").

Indeed, the blue part (again, what we call "reality") is not only bounded by the black part, but, by reason of the fact that even though the substance from which reality is created, might actually be infinite - in and of itself,...

...nevertheless, whatever it (the blue part) comprises will always be contained within (forever bounded/surrounded/subsumed) by the black part, which, in a certain sense, can be thought of as being just as "real" as the blue part,...

...thus, making it an integral (and existing) aspect of what you are calling the "whole" (which is sometimes called the "ALL-THAT-IS").
_______

Bravo! You got the point. I only need to mention that the black part in the picture is not nothingness. It is at least spacetime. No matter may exist in the black part but that is something.

[seeds]

Bravo! You got the point. I only need to mention that the black part in the picture is not nothingness. It is at least spacetime. No matter may exist in the black part but that is something.

No, bahman, the black part in the image does not represent the classic definition of "spacetime."

No, the term "spacetime" is associated with the not-so-empty vacuum of space that is loosely represented by this image...



...which depicts the vacuum of space as consisting of quantum fields from which sub-atomic particles are derived.

In other words, the term "spacetime" represents the "non-local" underpinning of the material universe that binds the phenomenal features of the universe together into what the blue (and closed) bubble in this image...



...actually represents,...

...while the black part of that image represents "absolute nothingness"...

(as in no quantum fields nor anything else from which so-called "reality" can be derived)

...and has nothing to do with what we call "spacetime."

"Spacetime" is a term that can be loosely likened to an invisible foundational "fabric" that, again, not only binds the bubble of the universe together into one seamless and autonomous whole unto itself, but is bendable and curvable by phenomena containing mass.
_______

[bahman]

Bravo! You got the point. I only need to mention that the black part in the picture is not nothingness. It is at least spacetime. No matter may exist in the black part but that is something.

No, bahman, the black part in the image does not represent the classic definition of "spacetime."

No, the term "spacetime" is associated with the not-so-empty vacuum of space that is loosely represented by this image...



...which depicts the vacuum of space as consisting of quantum fields from which sub-atomic particles are derived.

In other words, the term "spacetime" represents the "non-local" underpinning of the material universe that binds the phenomenal features of the universe together into what the blue (and closed) bubble in this image...



...actually represents,...

...while the black part of that image represents "absolute nothingness"...

(as in no quantum fields nor anything else from which so-called "reality" can be derived)

...and has nothing to do with what we call "spacetime."

"Spacetime" is a term that can be loosely likened to an invisible foundational "fabric" that, again, not only binds the bubble of the universe together into one seamless and autonomous whole unto itself, but is bendable and curvable by phenomena containing mass.
_______

Nothingness cannot occupy space. In your picture it does.

[Advocate]

Actuality - the universe beyond the perception of a mind, is infinite in each of the physical dimensions, time, space, and scale.

[seeds]

_______



_______