The whole is boundless

[seeds]

Nothingness cannot occupy space. In your picture it does.

You told me that you read the OP of my "Burning Bush" thread, in which case, you already know my stance regarding the ontology of the universe.

However, coming at this from the perspective of hardcore materialism, this image we've been discussing...



...is a visual representation of a bubble of reality that, at this present moment (and based on pre-James Webb telescope discoveries), is estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter.

We're talking about a 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, was allegedly (and literally) smaller than the tiny dot between these two brackets [.].

And the point is that the blackened area of the above image, along with the blackened area in the following gif that depicts the moment when the infinitesimal singularity [.] began expanding,...



...are both visual representations of whatever it is that is forever making room (relenting/giving-way/opening up, etc.) for the ever-expanding bubble of the universe.

And seeing how the proponents of hardcore materialism allege that time, space, and matter didn't even exist prior to the initial expansion of the infinitesimal singularity [.],...

...then what else other than "absolute nothingness" could those blackened areas be called?

Btw, don't get hung up on the details of those rudimentary images. Instead, use your imagination to peer-out into the farthest reaches of the actual universe, to what, logically, must be a light barrier, and try to picture what the ever-expanding light barrier (the metaphorical "film" of the bubble) is expanding into.

Indeed, if not into an infinite and "boundless" nothingness that could never be filled to capacity no matter how many universes come into existence,...

...then what else could it be?
_______

[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'.
What is 'Boundless' is ultimately 'bounded'.

Whatever is 'boundless' is bounded by various and specific human-based Framework and System of emergence, realization and knowledge.

As Phyllo mentioned, one of the FSK is the linguistic FSK but there is more, i.e. the prior Framework and System of emergence, realization and knowledge.
In other word, there is no boundlessness that is absolutely mind-independent.

As such, there is no boundlessness that is absolutely-absolute such as your absolute Mind or the theistic God.

[bahman]

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

OK, so you agree?

[bahman]

Nothingness cannot occupy space. In your picture it does.

You told me that you read the OP of my "Burning Bush" thread, in which case, you already know my stance regarding the ontology of the universe.

However, coming at this from the perspective of hardcore materialism, this image we've been discussing...



...is a visual representation of a bubble of reality that, at this present moment (and based on pre-James Webb telescope discoveries), is estimated to be approximately 93 billion light-years in diameter.

We're talking about a 93 billion light-year in diameter bubble of reality that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, was allegedly (and literally) smaller than the tiny dot between these two brackets [.].

And the point is that the blackened area of the above image, along with the blackened area in the following gif that depicts the moment when the infinitesimal singularity [.] began expanding,...



...are both visual representations of whatever it is that is forever making room (relenting/giving-way/opening up, etc.) for the ever-expanding bubble of the universe.

And seeing how the proponents of hardcore materialism allege that time, space, and matter didn't even exist prior to the initial expansion of the infinitesimal singularity [.],...

...then what else other than "absolute nothingness" could those blackened areas be called?

Btw, don't get hung up on the details of those rudimentary images. Instead, use your imagination to peer-out into the farthest reaches of the actual universe, to what, logically, must be a light barrier, and try to picture what the ever-expanding light barrier (the metaphorical "film" of the bubble) is expanding into.

Indeed, if not into an infinite and "boundless" nothingness that could never be filled to capacity no matter how many universes come into existence,...

...then what else could it be?
_______

Well, spacetime is fundamental and it is boundless. You can show that time cannot begin to exist. I showed this here. Space is another part of the spacetime manifold therefore space cannot begin to exist as well. Spacetime simply existed since the beginning of time. Now you can fill up the spacetime with stuff. If all that exists is within the limited area called bubble then the rest of spacetime is empty. The area of spacetime that is empty is the black area in your picture.

[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.

Note 'assume' and 'imagination'.

You can use assume in both sentences.

What is 'Boundless' is ultimately 'bounded'.

What?

[Sculptor]

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.

No. It is perfectly consistent with logic that the whole is bounded by void. That is nothing; no matter, no space.
In fact "the whole" is, by definition, only bound by void.

[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.

No. It is perfectly consistent with logic that the whole is bounded by void. That is nothing; no matter, no space.
In fact "the whole" is, by definition, only bound by void.

What is the void? Nothing?

[Sculptor]

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.

No. It is perfectly consistent with logic that the whole is bounded by void. That is nothing; no matter, no space.
In fact "the whole" is, by definition, only bound by void.

What is the void? Nothing?

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

[bahman]

No. It is perfectly consistent with logic that the whole is bounded by void. That is nothing; no matter, no space.
In fact "the whole" is, by definition, only bound by void.

What is the void? Nothing?

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

But nothing means the absence of anything including spacetime!

[Sculptor]

What is the void? Nothing?

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

But nothing means the absence of anything including spacetime!

That is what I said, yes.

[bahman]

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

But nothing means the absence of anything including spacetime!

That is what I said, yes.

So you think that the universe is embedded within the void?

[Sculptor]

But nothing means the absence of anything including spacetime!

That is what I said, yes.

So you think that the universe is embedded within the void?

You cannot "embed" in a void, since a void cannot be a bed.

[bahman]

That is what I said, yes.

So you think that the universe is embedded within the void?

You cannot "embed" in a void, since a void cannot be a bed.

So, the universe is surrounded by void?

[Sculptor]

So you think that the universe is embedded within the void?

You cannot "embed" in a void, since a void cannot be a bed.

So, the universe is surrounded by void?

I think we are now going round in circles.

See above.

[bahman]

You cannot "embed" in a void, since a void cannot be a bed.

So, the universe is surrounded by void?

I think we are now going round in circles.

See above.

You said that the universe is bounded by the void! Didn't you?