Nothingness is All Things

[Darkneos]

In modern science ultimate reality is thought of as a place of no things, in other words, unmanifested energy, while apparent reality is a place of things/objects. Objects, however, are manifest energies, but I suspect they are dependent on the effects of energy on the biological subject's body. Seeing as we cannot escape our subjective consciousness, however, to date it is impossible to know.

That’s not what modern science regards as “ultimate reality”. There is no “ultimate reality” or “apparent reality” in modern science it’s just reality. It’s not manifest energy or unmanifested energy. There are levels to it where different laws and rules apply. It’s why some quantum principles don’t apply at the classical level and vice versa.

Again you need a degree in physics to understand this. I only know this because I spoke to someone who did and the answer is no fields are not “unmanifested energy”. The truth is way more complicated than I think most folks here will get.

But the short answer to your statement is NO. I know because someone I saw 7 years ago said the same stupid remark.

Was E = C of the light square a stupid equation? When science was searching for the ultimate stuff of which all things were made, and with ever more powerful microscopes they discovered that matter is not made of matter. So, there is matter which is an energy form and unmanifested energy much of it we cannot even perceive. So, what is there besides energy in these two forms? They must have a name for it no?

Not only is that not the equation but that’s also not what the equation says. The energy of a system or particle is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared. You’re an idiot.

Matter is not energy, everything is not made of energy. The only folks who say that are woo peddlers who don’t understand science.

[popeye1945]

That’s not what modern science regards as “ultimate reality”. There is no “ultimate reality” or “apparent reality” in modern science it’s just reality. It’s not manifest energy or unmanifested energy. There are levels to it where different laws and rules apply. It’s why some quantum principles don’t apply at the classical level and vice versa.

Again you need a degree in physics to understand this. I only know this because I spoke to someone who did and the answer is no fields are not “unmanifested energy”. The truth is way more complicated than I think most folks here will get.

But the short answer to your statement is NO. I know because someone I saw 7 years ago said the same stupid remark.

Was E = C of the light square a stupid equation? When science was searching for the ultimate stuff of which all things were made, and with ever more powerful microscopes they discovered that matter is not made of matter. So, there is matter which is an energy form and unmanifested energy much of it we cannot even perceive. So, what is there besides energy in these two forms? They must have a name for it no?

Not only is that not the equation but that’s also not what the equation says. The energy of a system or particle is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared. You’re an idiot.

Matter is not energy, everything is not made of energy. The only folks who say that are woo peddlers who don’t understand science.

You bring such class to the forum!

[Darkneos]

Was E = C of the light square a stupid equation? When science was searching for the ultimate stuff of which all things were made, and with ever more powerful microscopes they discovered that matter is not made of matter. So, there is matter which is an energy form and unmanifested energy much of it we cannot even perceive. So, what is there besides energy in these two forms? They must have a name for it no?

Not only is that not the equation but that’s also not what the equation says. The energy of a system or particle is equal to its mass times the speed of light squared. You’re an idiot.

Matter is not energy, everything is not made of energy. The only folks who say that are woo peddlers who don’t understand science.

You bring such class to the forum!

There are limited tolerance levels for stupid. Already exceeded mine so far.

If you’re gonna cite science at least understand it.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think we need to define our terms, are you using the term in a religious sense, where there is no foundation for said belief, or are you talking about I believe I am six foot one.

You struck a very interesting point in your statement. I don't think you did it on purpose or you may have done it intuitively without consciously knowing.

This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise;

1. If we do not define our terms we end in absurdity as anything can equate thus creating an indefinite unity.

2. If we do define our terms, by making distinctions between the two, then we still end in absurdity as belief and style contradict and anything can go from that conversation.

Uhh then why are you posting on a philosophy forum in the first place.

You realize the absurdity of saying it doesn’t matter and then forming an argument through it to explain that right?

Duh if you don’t define terms then you’ll just talk past each other. This doesn’t mean indefinite unity it just means you won’t be able to have a conversation.

Number 2 is just wrong. Anything can’t go from a conversation where you define terms because you know what the conversation is about and what you are trying to communicate. The only way anything can go is if you DONT define terms and plenty of people avoid trying to do that because they depend on being able to escape in ambiguity.

Like, you’re not even right even by your own points.

Why post? As I said:

"This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise"

As to the futility, if I practice philosophy it is futile. If I do not practice philosophy then I am practicing a philosophy of no philosophy and a contradiction occurs. I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

As to point 2.

1. If we define terms we make distinctions.
2. If we make distinctions we make things which stand apart (otherwise there would be no distinction as there would be no comparison).
3. If we make things which stand apart then we make contradictions (as contradictions are that which stand apart, i.e. an opposition).
4. If we make things which contradict then it does not matter what results as the premises are grounded in contradiction.

Now as to a more precise explanation. If 'belief' and 'style' contradict then there is a continual opposition between the two, there is no way to present a unified argument where both work together (for if both worked together then in effect they would be "one" and creating the distinction between them would be pointless). If neither work together, i.e. are not 'one', then a continual string of opposing arguments and definitions follow and whatever results is grounded in opposition. If opposition is the end result, or just the form and manner of the continuum of arguments/definitions which follow from them, then anything can be justified including the observation that there can be a contradiction to the contradiction of 'belief' and 'style' (i.e. to oppose opposition).

[Darkneos]

You struck a very interesting point in your statement. I don't think you did it on purpose or you may have done it intuitively without consciously knowing.

This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise;

1. If we do not define our terms we end in absurdity as anything can equate thus creating an indefinite unity.

2. If we do define our terms, by making distinctions between the two, then we still end in absurdity as belief and style contradict and anything can go from that conversation.

Uhh then why are you posting on a philosophy forum in the first place.

You realize the absurdity of saying it doesn’t matter and then forming an argument through it to explain that right?

Duh if you don’t define terms then you’ll just talk past each other. This doesn’t mean indefinite unity it just means you won’t be able to have a conversation.

Number 2 is just wrong. Anything can’t go from a conversation where you define terms because you know what the conversation is about and what you are trying to communicate. The only way anything can go is if you DONT define terms and plenty of people avoid trying to do that because they depend on being able to escape in ambiguity.

Like, you’re not even right even by your own points.

Why post? As I said:

"This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise"

As to the futility, if I practice philosophy it is futile. If I do not practice philosophy then I am practicing a philosophy of no philosophy and a contradiction occurs. I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

As to point 2.

1. If we define terms we make distinctions.
2. If we make distinctions we make things which stand apart (otherwise there would be no distinction as there would be no comparison).
3. If we make things which stand apart then we make contradictions (as contradictions are that which stand apart, i.e. an opposition).
4. If we make things which contradict then it does not matter what results as the premises are grounded in contradiction.

Now as to a more precise explanation. If 'belief' and 'style' contradict then there is a continual opposition between the two, there is no way to present a unified argument where both work together (for if both worked together then in effect they would be "one" and creating the distinction between them would be pointless). If neither work together, i.e. are not 'one', then a continual string of opposing arguments and definitions follow and whatever results is grounded in opposition. If opposition is the end result, or just the form and manner of the continuum of arguments/definitions which follow from them, then anything can be justified including the observation that there can be a contradiction to the contradiction of 'belief' and 'style' (i.e. to oppose opposition).

Your points don't highlight the futility of philosophy, especially since society existing and you posting seems to prove you wrong. Practicing it isn't futile either for the same reason.

For point two the logic doesn't follow. Making distinctions isn't the same thing as a contradiction and conflating the two is...well ignorance. Two things can work together without being the same thing.



I can only assume this is a horribly poor understanding of nondualism.

[Eodnhoj7]

Uhh then why are you posting on a philosophy forum in the first place.

You realize the absurdity of saying it doesn’t matter and then forming an argument through it to explain that right?

Duh if you don’t define terms then you’ll just talk past each other. This doesn’t mean indefinite unity it just means you won’t be able to have a conversation.

Number 2 is just wrong. Anything can’t go from a conversation where you define terms because you know what the conversation is about and what you are trying to communicate. The only way anything can go is if you DONT define terms and plenty of people avoid trying to do that because they depend on being able to escape in ambiguity.

Like, you’re not even right even by your own points.

Why post? As I said:

"This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise"

As to the futility, if I practice philosophy it is futile. If I do not practice philosophy then I am practicing a philosophy of no philosophy and a contradiction occurs. I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

As to point 2.

1. If we define terms we make distinctions.
2. If we make distinctions we make things which stand apart (otherwise there would be no distinction as there would be no comparison).
3. If we make things which stand apart then we make contradictions (as contradictions are that which stand apart, i.e. an opposition).
4. If we make things which contradict then it does not matter what results as the premises are grounded in contradiction.

Now as to a more precise explanation. If 'belief' and 'style' contradict then there is a continual opposition between the two, there is no way to present a unified argument where both work together (for if both worked together then in effect they would be "one" and creating the distinction between them would be pointless). If neither work together, i.e. are not 'one', then a continual string of opposing arguments and definitions follow and whatever results is grounded in opposition. If opposition is the end result, or just the form and manner of the continuum of arguments/definitions which follow from them, then anything can be justified including the observation that there can be a contradiction to the contradiction of 'belief' and 'style' (i.e. to oppose opposition).

Your points don't highlight the futility of philosophy, especially since society existing and you posting seems to prove you wrong. Practicing it isn't futile either for the same reason.

For point two the logic doesn't follow. Making distinctions isn't the same thing as a contradiction and conflating the two is...well ignorance. Two things can work together without being the same thing.



I can only assume this is a horribly poor understanding of nondualism.

If all meaning is assigned, then meaning is relative (right in one context and wrong in another) thus the points you make are just opinionated assertions from other points of view.

[Darkneos]

Why post? As I said:

"This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise"

As to the futility, if I practice philosophy it is futile. If I do not practice philosophy then I am practicing a philosophy of no philosophy and a contradiction occurs. I am simply pointing to the nature of contradiction in things, as well as absurdity, to practice 'unlearning' things.

As to point 2.

1. If we define terms we make distinctions.
2. If we make distinctions we make things which stand apart (otherwise there would be no distinction as there would be no comparison).
3. If we make things which stand apart then we make contradictions (as contradictions are that which stand apart, i.e. an opposition).
4. If we make things which contradict then it does not matter what results as the premises are grounded in contradiction.

Now as to a more precise explanation. If 'belief' and 'style' contradict then there is a continual opposition between the two, there is no way to present a unified argument where both work together (for if both worked together then in effect they would be "one" and creating the distinction between them would be pointless). If neither work together, i.e. are not 'one', then a continual string of opposing arguments and definitions follow and whatever results is grounded in opposition. If opposition is the end result, or just the form and manner of the continuum of arguments/definitions which follow from them, then anything can be justified including the observation that there can be a contradiction to the contradiction of 'belief' and 'style' (i.e. to oppose opposition).

Your points don't highlight the futility of philosophy, especially since society existing and you posting seems to prove you wrong. Practicing it isn't futile either for the same reason.

For point two the logic doesn't follow. Making distinctions isn't the same thing as a contradiction and conflating the two is...well ignorance. Two things can work together without being the same thing.



I can only assume this is a horribly poor understanding of nondualism.

If all meaning is assigned, then meaning is relative (right in one context and wrong in another) thus the points you make are just opinionated assertions from other points of view.

No. Also by that logic so is everything you're saying.

So again, what's the point?

[Eodnhoj7]

Your points don't highlight the futility of philosophy, especially since society existing and you posting seems to prove you wrong. Practicing it isn't futile either for the same reason.

For point two the logic doesn't follow. Making distinctions isn't the same thing as a contradiction and conflating the two is...well ignorance. Two things can work together without being the same thing.



I can only assume this is a horribly poor understanding of nondualism.

If all meaning is assigned, then meaning is relative (right in one context and wrong in another) thus the points you make are just opinionated assertions from other points of view.

No. Also by that logic so is everything you're saying.

So again, what's the point?

I never said meaning was assigned or not assigned...but you did and I am following your own logic to show you end in absurdity.

[Darkneos]

If all meaning is assigned, then meaning is relative (right in one context and wrong in another) thus the points you make are just opinionated assertions from other points of view.

No. Also by that logic so is everything you're saying.

So again, what's the point?

I never said meaning was assigned or not assigned...but you did and I am following your own logic to show you end in absurdity.

You're not, my logic doesn't end in absurdity but yours does. You realize that meaning is relative right? There is no objective meaning. But that doesn't make it opinionated assertions from other points of view. Though bear in mind that by accusing me of that you are also accusing yourself of the very same thing.

Again, what is your point?

[Eodnhoj7]

No. Also by that logic so is everything you're saying.

So again, what's the point?

I never said meaning was assigned or not assigned...but you did and I am following your own logic to show you end in absurdity.

You're not, my logic doesn't end in absurdity but yours does. You realize that meaning is relative right? There is no objective meaning. But that doesn't make it opinionated assertions from other points of view. Though bear in mind that by accusing me of that you are also accusing yourself of the very same thing.

Again, what is your point?

But what is logic to you if meaning is subjective? Under your own logic there can be no objective logic.

If meaning is relative then everyone is right and wrong under one context or another. If there is no objective meaning then your statement is subjective and opinionated.

If I say everything results in paradox and contradiction then by default I and everyone else have to end in contradiction/paradox. If I contradict myself, and at the other end point to the contradictions in others, I am only proving further that everything ends in contradictions/paradox.

I am un-sensify things.

[Darkneos]

Wrong on all points.

Again, what’s your point?

[Eodnhoj7]

Wrong on all points.

Again, what’s your point?

That is a subjective statement on your part if you claim all meaning is subjective.

As to the point? Who said one is needed? Things just occur.

[Darkneos]

Wrong on all points.

Again, what’s your point?

That is a subjective statement on your part if you claim all meaning is subjective.

As to the point? Who said one is needed? Things just occur.

Wrong again.

What’s your point?

[Eodnhoj7]

Wrong on all points.

Again, what’s your point?

That is a subjective statement on your part if you claim all meaning is subjective.

As to the point? Who said one is needed? Things just occur.

Wrong again.

What’s your point?

If meaning is assigned and meaning is relative and subjective (as you claim) then in many respects I am right.

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

[Darkneos]

That is a subjective statement on your part if you claim all meaning is subjective.

As to the point? Who said one is needed? Things just occur.

Wrong again.

What’s your point?

If meaning is assigned and meaning is relative and subjective (as you claim) then in many respects I am right.

Now you are doing the same thing you accuse me of...repeating.

Wrong again, what’s your point.