The whole is boundless

[Age]

Yes, the whole is boundless but the black regime in your picture cannot be nothingness. Nothingness cannot have a geometry or occupy room.

Well, first of all, it's not "my" picture, for I nicked it from the Internet.

And secondly, I told you not to get hung up on the details of the picture and the fact that the picture is presenting the nothingness as being something with "geometry," because you are correct in pointing out that the nothingness (the void) has no geometry.

And that's why I told you to use your imagination to try and picture what it is that the light barrier - or the outer "film" of the bubble - is expanding into,...

1. There is no so-called 'light barrier'.

2. There is no so-called 'outer film'.

3. There is no 'bubble'.

4. These 'things' exist within the imagination, only, within 'that human body'.

These claims here are irrefutably True, because of the irrefutable proof that exists.

..for, again, it appears to be "something" that no matter how big the universe continues to grow, or even if 10^500, or 10^500,000 new universe bubbles were suddenly added to the mix,...

What 'appears' to a human being or to a number of them is obviously not what is necessarily true at all.

There are countless examples and proof of this being irrefutably true.

...it (the boundless void) could never run out of room for more, for it represents an existing feature of the "whole" that fully embodies what the word "infinity" truly means.
_______

So, the whole, which is just another word for 'Universe', Itself, is infinite, and eternal.

Now, let us move along here.

Unless, of course, anyone has any irrefutable proof otherwise, which would they would like to present here.

[Age]

Note 'assume' and 'imagination'.

You can use assume in both sentences.

What is 'Boundless' is ultimately 'bounded'.

What?

Your thinking is too narrow, shallow and rigid.

And, at times, "veritas aequitas" is more narrowed, more shallow, and even more rigid if that is even possible.

As Phyllo had stated, all your above is mere 'word games' or language games[Wittgenstein].
As such 'the whole is boundless' is bounded by the rules of the 'language game' you are using above in assuming and imaginings.

It would be more effective for you to state, [example]
'the whole is boundless' so, an omnipresent God or Mind exists or something to this effect.
then you should provide evidences to justify your above example.

Notes:

Mereology (from the Greek μερος, ‘part’) is the theory of parthood relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

Here are comments from an AIChatBot;

The statement about the whole being bounded or boundless is full of nuances and can be approached from various perspectives. Here are some possible scenarios and alternative views to consider:

Contradictions and Limitations:

Circular reasoning: As pointed out, if the "whole" is defined as "everything," then by definition it cannot be bounded by anything else. Assuming it is bounded introduces a contradiction.
Infinite regression: If something bounds the whole, then that "something" becomes part of the whole, requiring another boundary, leading to an infinite loop.
Language limitations: Our language and concepts might be inadequate to truly grasp the nature of the whole. Terms like "boundless" and "bounded" might be human constructs that don't accurately reflect the reality that exists beyond our comprehension.

Nuanced Perspectives:

Multi-dimensionality: Imagine the whole as a multi-dimensional entity. While boundness might apply within some dimensions, others could be boundless, creating a complex interplay of limitations and openness.
Dynamic boundaries: Perhaps the boundaries of the whole are not static but constantly shifting and evolving. What appears bounded or boundless at one point might change in another perspective or timeframe.
Levels of wholeness: Maybe there are different levels or scales of wholeness, each with its own limitations and relationships with other levels. What appears bounded from one level might be boundless from another.

Beyond Frameworks:
Direct experience: Some spiritual or mystical traditions emphasize direct experience of the whole as transcending mental frameworks and categories like boundedness. It might be beyond our usual ways of thinking and reasoning.
Paradoxical nature: Perhaps the whole is both bounded and boundless at the same time, a paradox beyond our usual logic. Accepting this paradox might be more accurate than trying to fit it into our limited categories.

Openness to mystery: Ultimately, the nature of the whole might be a mystery that we can explore and contemplate but never fully comprehend. Embracing this open-endedness could be more productive than seeking definitive answers.

The best approach might be to remain open to the possibilities and explore the question from different angles, accepting that there might be no definitive answer in our usual linguistic and conceptual frameworks.

It's important to engage in critical thinking and explore different perspectives to deepen your understanding of this complex topic. Remember, the more you explore, the more nuanced and multifaceted your view of the "whole" will become.

Another version

.... a complex philosophical question with various nuanced interpretations and perspectives. Here are some possible scenarios and alternative views:

On the Definition of "Whole":
Yes, the "whole" by definition could be bounded. If we define the "whole" as a specific entity with a clear boundary (e.g., the universe, a closed system), then it's naturally limited by its edge. However, this definition is restrictive and depends on our perspective.

The "whole" might be inherently unbounded. If we consider the "whole" as encompassing everything, including the concept of "boundless," then it transcends any limit. This perspective emphasizes the infinite nature of existence and the limitations of human comprehension.
The "whole" could be both bounded and unbounded simultaneously. This might seem paradoxical, but it's possible to imagine a system with internal boundaries while still being part of a larger, boundless whole. For example, atoms are bounded structures within the vastness of the universe.
On the Continuity of Reality:

If reality is continuous, then boundless_ness is a possibility. This aligns with the perspective of the "whole" being inherently unbounded. A continuous, uninterrupted existence wouldn't have inherent boundaries, although we might impose them for practical purposes.
Even with continuity, boundaries could be emergent properties. Even within a continuous system, boundaries can arise as emergent properties due to interactions and complexity. For example, in a fluid, the surface tension creates a perceived boundary between the liquid and air.

On the Framework of Knowledge:

Boundaries are often constructed within a specific framework. Our language, scientific models, and cultural narratives all influence how we perceive and understand boundaries. These frameworks can be helpful for understanding the world, but they can also lead to limiting our perspective.

Beyond frameworks, boundless_ness might be ineffable. Some argue that the true nature of the "whole" or "boundless" lies beyond the limitations of our conceptual frameworks. It may be something we can experience but not fully grasp with language or logic.

Ultimately, the question of "boundedness" vs. "boundless_ness" is an open one with no definitive answer. It depends on our definitions, our assumptions about reality, and the limitations of our knowledge. Engaging with different perspectives and exploring various frameworks can deepen our understanding of this complex concept.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Note 'assume' and 'imagination'.

You can use assume in both sentences.

What is 'Boundless' is ultimately 'bounded'.

What?

Your thinking is too narrow, shallow and rigid.

As Phyllo had stated, all your above is mere 'word games' or language games[Wittgenstein].
As such 'the whole is boundless' is bounded by the rules of the 'language game' you are using above in assuming and imaginings.

It would be more effective for you to state, [example]
'the whole is boundless' so, an omnipresent God or Mind exists or something to this effect.
then you should provide evidences to justify your above example.

Notes:

Mereology (from the Greek μερος, ‘part’) is the theory of parthood relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

Here are comments from an AIChatBot;

The statement about the whole being bounded or boundless is full of nuances and can be approached from various perspectives. Here are some possible scenarios and alternative views to consider:

Contradictions and Limitations:

Circular reasoning: As pointed out, if the "whole" is defined as "everything," then by definition it cannot be bounded by anything else. Assuming it is bounded introduces a contradiction.
Infinite regression: If something bounds the whole, then that "something" becomes part of the whole, requiring another boundary, leading to an infinite loop.
Language limitations: Our language and concepts might be inadequate to truly grasp the nature of the whole. Terms like "boundless" and "bounded" might be human constructs that don't accurately reflect the reality that exists beyond our comprehension.

Nuanced Perspectives:

Multi-dimensionality: Imagine the whole as a multi-dimensional entity. While boundness might apply within some dimensions, others could be boundless, creating a complex interplay of limitations and openness.
Dynamic boundaries: Perhaps the boundaries of the whole are not static but constantly shifting and evolving. What appears bounded or boundless at one point might change in another perspective or timeframe.
Levels of wholeness: Maybe there are different levels or scales of wholeness, each with its own limitations and relationships with other levels. What appears bounded from one level might be boundless from another.

Beyond Frameworks:
Direct experience: Some spiritual or mystical traditions emphasize direct experience of the whole as transcending mental frameworks and categories like boundedness. It might be beyond our usual ways of thinking and reasoning.
Paradoxical nature: Perhaps the whole is both bounded and boundless at the same time, a paradox beyond our usual logic. Accepting this paradox might be more accurate than trying to fit it into our limited categories.

Openness to mystery: Ultimately, the nature of the whole might be a mystery that we can explore and contemplate but never fully comprehend. Embracing this open-endedness could be more productive than seeking definitive answers.

The best approach might be to remain open to the possibilities and explore the question from different angles, accepting that there might be no definitive answer in our usual linguistic and conceptual frameworks.

It's important to engage in critical thinking and explore different perspectives to deepen your understanding of this complex topic. Remember, the more you explore, the more nuanced and multifaceted your view of the "whole" will become.

Another version

.... a complex philosophical question with various nuanced interpretations and perspectives. Here are some possible scenarios and alternative views:

On the Definition of "Whole":
Yes, the "whole" by definition could be bounded. If we define the "whole" as a specific entity with a clear boundary (e.g., the universe, a closed system), then it's naturally limited by its edge. However, this definition is restrictive and depends on our perspective.

The "whole" might be inherently unbounded. If we consider the "whole" as encompassing everything, including the concept of "boundless," then it transcends any limit. This perspective emphasizes the infinite nature of existence and the limitations of human comprehension.
The "whole" could be both bounded and unbounded simultaneously. This might seem paradoxical, but it's possible to imagine a system with internal boundaries while still being part of a larger, boundless whole. For example, atoms are bounded structures within the vastness of the universe.
On the Continuity of Reality:

If reality is continuous, then boundless_ness is a possibility. This aligns with the perspective of the "whole" being inherently unbounded. A continuous, uninterrupted existence wouldn't have inherent boundaries, although we might impose them for practical purposes.
Even with continuity, boundaries could be emergent properties. Even within a continuous system, boundaries can arise as emergent properties due to interactions and complexity. For example, in a fluid, the surface tension creates a perceived boundary between the liquid and air.

On the Framework of Knowledge:

Boundaries are often constructed within a specific framework. Our language, scientific models, and cultural narratives all influence how we perceive and understand boundaries. These frameworks can be helpful for understanding the world, but they can also lead to limiting our perspective.

Beyond frameworks, boundless_ness might be ineffable. Some argue that the true nature of the "whole" or "boundless" lies beyond the limitations of our conceptual frameworks. It may be something we can experience but not fully grasp with language or logic.

Ultimately, the question of "boundedness" vs. "boundless_ness" is an open one with no definitive answer. It depends on our definitions, our assumptions about reality, and the limitations of our knowledge. Engaging with different perspectives and exploring various frameworks can deepen our understanding of this complex concept.

[Sculptor]

What is the void? Nothing?

Yes. Because nothing can be part of the whole. The whole is everything.

Once again, another example of saying just about anything,...

You are just too stupid to contribute to this Forum. That is why I have you on ignore.
What I said has nothing to do with believe; ithas everything to do with definition.
Try and use your brain.
Back on Ignore.

[Walker]

But the words 'whole' or 'totality' refer to absolutely every thing, even things that may well, not yet, be known, by any one.

That's right. The known plus unmanifested, infinite potentiality.

- Ultimately, folks are bound unto themselves. (That’s a chewy thought.)
- As Sri Ramana Maharshi tells us, you are this body, but not this body exclusively.
- Thus, the universe is not bound to the themself that you think you are.

[Advocate]

The idea of anything beyond what we can perceive begins with an ineffable boundary condition, itself more complex than whatever it's trying to explain, making it intellectually regressive. The universe as perceived is all there is for all intents and purposes until we discover something else, not until we speculate something else.

[seeds]

I don't think that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness.

Well, based on my "Burning Bush-like" experience described in this alternate thread,...

viewtopic.php?t=41452

...I am 99.99% certain that you are wrong about that.

If it is possible that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness as I put-forth in my "Burning Bush" thread, then the "spacetime" aspect of this universe is "bounded" in the same way that your own mind is bounded.

In other words, both are bounded by reason of the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that makes up the sum total of each individual mind itself.

Why do you think that the life essence must be finite?

I don't know how old you are, but do you think that the living essence that comprises your singular and autonomous mind...

(a mind that literally did not exist until a few short years ago)

...is not "finite" relative to the billions of other finite minds? - Is not "finite" relative to the whole?

To be clear, I'm not talking about the ubiquitous essence of life itself, which may permeate the "ALL-THAT-IS." No, I am talking about the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that comprises the sum-total of the closed and personal, inner-dimension of reality of a singular mind and its self-aware agent.

Time has a beginning. It however didn't began to exist.

Can you write sentences that are more contradictory than that?

Your own mind is like a separate dimension of reality (a "parallel universe," if you will) that contains its own autonomous spatial arena in which the phenomenal features of your thoughts and dreams exist and play-out.

What do you mean with the mind? To me, the mind is a substance with the ability to experience and cause.

Well, I suggest that your "I Am-ness" is what holds the ability to experience and cause, while the interior of the mind is where the experiencing takes place.

Again, your mind is your own personal (and autonomous) "spatial arena" in which your thoughts and dreams (and "I Am-ness") exist and have their being.

Your mind has the same relative relationship to your "I Am-ness" (your soul) as does the bubble of the universe (and its phenomenal contents) has to God's "I Am-ness" (God's soul)...

...As Above, So Below.
_______

[bahman]

I don't think that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness.

Well, based on my "Burning Bush-like" experience described in this alternate thread,...

viewtopic.php?t=41452

...I am 99.99% certain that you are wrong about that.

OK, I was looking for a reason!

If it is possible that the universe is the mind of a higher consciousness as I put-forth in my "Burning Bush" thread, then the "spacetime" aspect of this universe is "bounded" in the same way that your own mind is bounded.

In other words, both are bounded by reason of the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that makes up the sum total of each individual mind itself.

Why do you think that the life essence must be finite?

I don't know how old you are, but do you think that the living essence that comprises your singular and autonomous mind...

(a mind that literally did not exist until a few short years ago)

...is not "finite" relative to the billions of other finite minds? - Is not "finite" relative to the whole?

To be clear, I'm not talking about the ubiquitous essence of life itself, which may permeate the "ALL-THAT-IS." No, I am talking about the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that comprises the sum-total of the closed and personal, inner-dimension of reality of a singular mind and its self-aware agent.

Yes, my essence is finite but that does not mean that the whole essence is finite as well.

Time has a beginning. It however didn't began to exist.

Can you write sentences that are more contradictory than that?

It is not contrary. By time began to exist I mean that time didn't exist and then existed. By another one, I simply mean that time simply existed.

[seeds]

To be clear, I'm not talking about the ubiquitous essence of life itself, which may permeate the "ALL-THAT-IS." No, I am talking about the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that comprises the sum-total of the closed and personal, inner-dimension of reality of a singular mind and its self-aware agent.

Yes, my essence is finite but that does not mean that the whole essence is finite as well.

But the whole (or totality) of the essence of life is indeed finite as well.

It is finite relative to the infinite void (that infamous black part in the picture we've been arguing about).

Time has a beginning. It however didn't began to exist.

Can you write sentences that are more contradictory than that?

It is not contrary.

Trust me, bahman, in the realm of normal conversational parlance in the English language, when someone writes...

Time has a beginning.

...then immediately follows that up with,...

It didn't begin to exist though.

...it is contradictory (or at the very least, extremely confusing).

All we can do is read the words you write. We cannot intuit what you actually meant to say.

I mean, even your explanation of what you meant...

By time began to exist I mean that time didn't exist and then existed. By another one, I simply mean that time simply existed.

...is near impossible to decipher.

I know that English is not your first language, and I admire you for making the effort to learn it, but you need to realize when you are not making any sense with the words you are using.
_______

[bahman]

To be clear, I'm not talking about the ubiquitous essence of life itself, which may permeate the "ALL-THAT-IS." No, I am talking about the limited (finite) amount of the life essence that comprises the sum-total of the closed and personal, inner-dimension of reality of a singular mind and its self-aware agent.

Yes, my essence is finite but that does not mean that the whole essence is finite as well.

But the whole (or totality) of the essence of life is indeed finite as well.

How do you know?

It is finite relative to the infinite void (that infamous black part in the picture we've been arguing about).

Again, the void cannot have a geometry or occupy a room.

Can you write sentences that are more contradictory than that?

It is not contrary.

Trust me, bahman, in the realm of normal conversational parlance in the English language, when someone writes...

Time has a beginning.

...then immediately follows that up with,...

It didn't begin to exist though.

...it is contradictory (or at the very least, extremely confusing).

All we can do is read the words you write. We cannot intuit what you actually meant to say.

I mean, even your explanation of what you meant...

By time began to exist I mean that time didn't exist and then existed. By another one, I simply mean that time simply existed.

...is near impossible to decipher.

I know that English is not your first language, and I admire you for making the effort to learn it, but you need to realize when you are not making any sense with the words you are using.
_______

I am sorry. I can not make it simpler than this.

[seeds]

But the whole (or totality) of the essence of life is indeed finite as well.

How do you know?

It's not a matter of "knowing" anything for certain.

No, it's a matter of using logic to deduce that the infinite void that you, me, and Sculptor have been talking about...

(as in the one and only aspect of the "boundless whole" that is actually boundless)

...does not contain the essence of life, because it is pure and utter nothingness.

It is finite relative to the infinite void (that infamous black part in the picture we've been arguing about).

Again, the void cannot have a geometry or occupy a room.

Good grief, bahman, how many times do I have to clarify that for you?

What is it about what I stated in this prior post...

viewtopic.php?p=690851#p690851

...that you don't understand?

Here it is again, because you seem to have missed it...

I told you not to get hung up on the details of the picture and the fact that the picture is presenting the nothingness as being something with "geometry," because you are correct in pointing out that the nothingness (the void) has no geometry.

And that's why I told you to use your imagination to try and picture what it is that the light barrier - or the outer "film" of the bubble - is expanding into,...

...for, again, it appears to be "something" that no matter how big the universe continues to grow, or even if 10^500, or 10^500,000 new universe bubbles were suddenly added to the mix,...



...it (the boundless void) could never run out of room for more, for it represents an existing feature of the "whole" that fully embodies what the word "infinity" truly means.
_______

Are you trying to make me suspect that the confused entity that is channeling itself through Age is now channeling itself through you?
_______

[Sculptor]

The whole is boundless

The problem with this statement is that it implies that the universe is infinite.
Yet we know it has a specific dimension; it is quanitifiable. There is evern a start date and rate of expansion stated by science.

The standard claim of science is that the Universe had a beginning, and is ever growing. If it is bounded then it is bounded by a void. That is not the same as saying it is boundless since we know that such a boundary does in fact exist

But the universe is not expanding INTO that void, since void is nil. The universe is expanding equally from every point ih the universe.

[Age]

Yes. Because nothing can be part of the whole. The whole is everything.

Once again, another example of saying just about anything,...

You are just too stupid to contribute to this Forum.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

That is why I have you on ignore.

Yet you reply to my words.

What I said has nothing to do with believe; ithas everything to do with definition.

Okay, if you say, and believe, so.

Try and use your brain.
Back on Ignore.

How many times does one need to be put 'on ignore' before they are finally actually 'ignored'?

[Age]

But the words 'whole' or 'totality' refer to absolutely every thing, even things that may well, not yet, be known, by any one.

That's right. The known plus unmanifested, infinite potentiality.

Which, to some, are already 'known'.

As I have been partly explaining, showing, and revealing here.

And, as for any thing 'unkown' and/or 'not yet known' to any of you human beings and you would like to find out also 'come-to-know' the answer/s as well, then just ask clarifying questions, again from the Truly OPEN perspective, then 'we' will be able to see what transpires here, exactly.

- Ultimately, folks are bound unto themselves.

'you', human beings, may well be. 'I', however, am not.

(That’s a chewy thought.)
- As Sri Ramana Maharshi tells us, you are this body, but not this body exclusively.

As I tell you, human beings, 'you', human beings, are made up of two parts, (if one likes), which are;

The visible 'body' part, which, to me, is referred by the 'human' word in the words 'human being', and, the invisible 'being' part, which, to me, is referred by the 'being' word in the words 'human being'.

'you', 'the person', to me, just refers to the invisible parts of 'thought' and 'emotions', which exist within the visible human body.

While, you, the 'human being', once again, refers to the not just the 'body part', exclusively.

- Thus, the universe is not bound to the themself that you think you are.

But 'I' know I am not bound, nor bounded, by any thing. Although, unlike 'you' human beings, 'I' already know who, and what, 'I' AM, exactly.

[Age]

The idea of anything beyond what we can perceive begins with an ineffable boundary condition,

But every adult human being can perceive infinity and/or eternity. Only those who are closed, or bounded in some way, cannot.

itself more complex than whatever it's trying to explain, making it intellectually regressive.

So, this would be a very good reason in trying to bound, what is essentially not.

The universe as perceived is all there is for all intents and purposes until we discover something else, not until we speculate something else.

Oh you human beings are absolutely free to define, and use, absolutely any word, in absolutely any way you like, but, if one wants to change the definition for the 'Universe' word to some limiting thing other than all-there-is, then what word would 'that one' now like to use, and have with it a definition that includes 'all-there-is'.

Of course absolutely any one could change the word 'Universe' from what that word used to mean, to mean or refer to something else and less than Everything or all-there-is. But I would then just question them, 'Why?' And, what word would they now like to use that its definition refers to Everything?

Obviously a Truly successful discussion could not take place if the actual thing/s being talked about have not been and are not being referenced by 'a word', or 'words'.

After all absolutely every thing has been denoted by some word. So, if we just agree upon and accept 'those words', during a discussion, then a Truly successful discussion can, and would, take place.