View Full Version : The Paradoxial Axiom.
Seemingly, nothing can be said about what lies prior to form, but theoretical physicists warm to the idea that the universe comes from 'nothing' so 'nothing' needs to be represented by something.
We dont really know if light travels, we just know it is emitted from an atom at one time and arrives at another atom a bit later... but we can not determine its 'flight path'. It might as well be 'nothing' until it interacts with an atom, so the effect of light is accurately described, while light itself is intangible.
Actually, anything in itself is intangible, and such is the nature of emptiness, and even more obscure, because it does not interact with 'things'.
Things are interaction, so it is only reasonable to suggest that emptiness is interactive (but not with 'things') too, because emptiness is not nothingness.
The mind likes to have somthing it can put its finger on, like a proved set of axioms... but there again, axioms only exist as sets, so all representations collapse into infinity as the terms of context are removed, leaving no identity at all, not at singularity as one might assume, but at any point where the axioms in the set interact equally, leaving one definition (which is actually no definition).
This is getting hard to follow now... and I'm just about to go in circles... so over to you, your guides and the gods and angels.
tee hee
Many people have pointed this out, and insist it is proof of the meaninglessness and pointlessness of all.
To me, it is the wildest opportunity, the widest fissure in mundanity. If all is virtually nothing independent of interaction, then all might as easily be infinite possibility independent of interaction. That sword cuts both ways.
The question for one's self is - Is your universe virtually empty, or potentially full?
It is all the difference in the universe.
BlueSky
15-11-2011, 01:23 PM
If suddenly you realized that life as you know it only existed in the mind of God, would you consider it "empty"?
In other words if God was dreaming this and someone gave God a nudge, startling him/her (lol) to the point of waking up...what would happen to all this?
The gist of what I have said above is how I have seen life to be as the one unaware of it being made aware of it. Empty and yet something.
What or why that empty something called life IS....I don't know but it is pretty awesome and full of potential IMO
James
To perceive, not so much through the sences, but from the quality which cognizes thought, precedes the definition of it.
If we call this instrument 'the mind' what qualities can we attribute to it? Is the mind only the awareness of thought, or is there an intentional quality which conjures? If so we could say intention has no size no shape no form no place or location, but it is a very obvious thing...
This meaning life has, the purpose of it... not 'my purpose'... 'your purpose'... nor to question the meaning or the purpose... but to see that thought is observed, impersonally like observation is an interaction in the quantum feild.
The knowledge of being is something undoubtable, not a question of faith. A recognition which provides no clue at all as to what it is, but leaves no question that it is existent.
No answer as to 'what' knows, no question that it does, and so often the knowlege of existence is made the strongest identity, and 'we are that' and 'it's what we really are' or allusions to 'true self' become relentless thought occurances that propel the greatest desire; to 'know self', but already, existence is known.
As such, a thread on enlightenment will go on for pages, and you'll notice little explosions of temprament as the very notions which uphold what you think you are fall into foundlessness.
And... not forgetting the Monster Free Will thread of 2010, for free will is the greatest propellant of the identity crisis, with egotistic attempts to make intent 'mine'.
Buddah said 'what you think you become'.
We really look for something like a shining light we might become, but also ignore the obstacles which inhibit the possibility of what that might be. Who you are can not be different to the thought structure, the beliefs, the insecurities, the issues, the unbalance of equalibrium... lest you deny these about yourself, and continue to persue imaginary enlightenment, all the while being undoubtful of existence itself.
Anyway, so i rant and rave.
Seemingly, nothing can be said about what lies prior to form, but theoretical physicists warm to the idea that the universe comes from 'nothing' so 'nothing' needs to be represented by something.
We dont really know if light travels, we just know it is emitted from an atom at one time and arrives at another atom a bit later... but we can not determine its 'flight path'. It might as well be 'nothing' until it interacts with an atom, so the effect of light is accurately described, while light itself is intangible.
Actually, anything in itself is intangible, and such is the nature of emptiness, and even more obscure, because it does not interact with 'things'.
Things are interaction, so it is only reasonable to suggest that emptiness is interactive (but not with 'things') too, because emptiness is not nothingness.
The mind likes to have somthing it can put its finger on, like a proved set of axioms... but there again, axioms only exist as sets, so all representations collapse into infinity as the terms of context are removed, leaving no identity at all, not at singularity as one might assume, but at any point where the axioms in the set interact equally, leaving one definition (which is actually no definition).
This is getting hard to follow now... and I'm just about to go in circles... so over to you, your guides and the gods and angels.
tee hee
Then that suggests that there has always been something. Energy cannot be created or destroyed,only change form. Quantum shows u that matter at its base, is a form on unstable energy, therefore, things have always been in one way shape or form.
Just because we dont get why, or when it actually began, doesnt mean there was nothing, or something tha created it
We really look for something like a shining light we might become, but also ignore the obstacles which inhibit the possibility of what that might be. Who you are can not be different to the thought structure, the beliefs, the insecurities, the issues, the unbalance of equalibrium... lest you deny these about yourself, and continue to persue imaginary enlightenment, all the while being undoubtful of existence itself.
Fortunately, a very wise man once said...
What you think you become.
The only failure is a failure of faith in yourself.
7luminaries
15-11-2011, 03:50 PM
Seemingly, nothing can be said about what lies prior to form, but theoretical physicists warm to the idea that the universe comes from 'nothing' so 'nothing' needs to be represented by something.
We dont really know if light travels, we just know it is emitted from an atom at one time and arrives at another atom a bit later... but we can not determine its 'flight path'. It might as well be 'nothing' until it interacts with an atom, so the effect of light is accurately described, while light itself is intangible.
Actually, anything in itself is intangible, and such is the nature of emptiness, and even more obscure, because it does not interact with 'things'.
Things are interaction, so it is only reasonable to suggest that emptiness is interactive (but not with 'things') too, because emptiness is not nothingness.
The mind likes to have somthing it can put its finger on, like a proved set of axioms... but there again, axioms only exist as sets, so all representations collapse into infinity as the terms of context are removed, leaving no identity at all, not at singularity as one might assume, but at any point where the axioms in the set interact equally, leaving one definition (which is actually no definition).
This is getting hard to follow now... and I'm just about to go in circles... so over to you, your guides and the gods and angels.
tee hee
Interesting. All of this means one thing to the physicist, who struggles to describe with paradigms what actually exists, and as you say above, what actually occurs and is possible, and another to the mystic.
Especially since, with the advent of quantum understanding, scientists have come to realise that what they intend to measure and how they measure it will constrain their observation of reality.
To those that do healing and energy work, it's common knowledge that the light you work with in the form of spiritually visible light (to the third eye) is in fact intangible, is pure energy potential, and comes seemingly from nothing...or, comes from "somewhere else" not observed or known...whichever.
Also that energy as pure potential, like thought, is quantum and exists outside our classic understanding of the laws of time and space. Light exists in the form of pure energy potential, which can then be expressed or "called up" anywhere and at singular or multiple time/space focii.
This is itself a practical and very small scale recreation of the entire something from nothing. And fundamental to this is removing all mental boundaries and rational limitations regarding what one can do and what is possible.
Peace,
7L
Forgot that this was my place to be wildly strange, and make the 'difference between' from which axioms are from an endless infinity from which they can not.
The between is empty yet somehow defines the perimeter. That's very strange how the nothing becomes a distance between, no longer nothing, but a distance... but here I thought of three things, thing one, thing two and distance.
The origin ... can only ever be beyond the logical framework, but logic is not invented, it's ridged geometry confined to it's own dimensional framework, for equalateral relationships are limited in number (and defined) by the limited number of dimensions, and even a line requires three functions, two points and a distance, and no more than two can be equally interelated in that one dimension, for to retain that equal distance between three, a second dimension must be made.
Then to retain four equally relates points, three dimensions... and it is impossible to place more than four points equidistantly... so the rule that is not invented is; the number of points which can be equally spaced is one more than the number of dimensions. (Np=Nd+1)
This rule was not invented, it was discovered, understood, and a formula was made to express it.
As I said in previous post, it's a fact that the maximum number of points which can be equally spaced is the number of dimensions plus one (Np=Nd+1).
It is also true that any less points can not possibly create the dimensions, for example 2D requires 3 points. 3D requires 4 points, for the 'dimensionality' is the shape of the space contained within relationship between the points.
A 3D simplex is the tetrahedron, which has 4 vertices for example. The minimum number of vertices is the number of dimensions plus one, which creates a discrete ammount of space which regresses fractally, but never really reaches nothing, even though it has no size, it has a relationship which is constant.
I call the points vertices now but the formula is the same
Nv=Nd+1
Now it becomes necessary to discriminate between a point and a location, for a point can be singular but location can only be relative.A location in 3D is minimally the relationship between four points. Less points do not make a 3D space.
When I say 'shape'... I don't mean triangles and squares. I mean the nature of the relationship, but I will use regular shapes for the sake of demonstration. The regular shapes are descriptive of the principle, but are not the principle itself. The mind can not form the principle, as spaces have no size...
No single point itself is actually a location, so the pictograms are entirely conjured, but it is inevitable they cohere to the principle, because the principle itself is indestructable, inevitable and exact.
For example... If I place four points equally spaced they can only rest as the vertices of a tetrahedron and can only form a three dimensional space.
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/11_6_99/mathland.gif
There is not another possible shape, nor another possible number of dimensions... if four points are placed equally spaced...
Three equally spaced can only form a triangle.
Two points can only be equally spaced.
One point has no dimension and might as well not exist.
I did make up the rule 'four points equally spaced' but the consequence is inevitably the above shape, so 3D space can not exist except by this exact relationship... and is requisite of that rule (remembering the pictogram is not the principle).
Did man really invent that rule or did man discover the principle that pre-existed it and merely express it in this way?
vBulletin v3.5.5, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.