The Nature Of Reality

[Robinski78]

Taking all that on board, where does it leave the average individual???

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Robinski78

Taking all that on board, where does it leave the average individual???

It begs the question, what is where?

[Robinski78]

Mmmm... I like that Gem.... Good thinking....

[r6r6]

Gem-----If one looks at the universe as a material apparition, the universe we can study, then it does exist within concepts of infinity or the finite, but if we view it from the point of perception, then we come to a priori that necessitates consciousness.

Occupied space Universe is all the reality that we see, percieve and study. Mind/intellect also studies matematical concepts that may or may not equate or associate as and actual reality of occupied space i.e. part of our reality is the ability to imagine/fantsize that which may not have real occupied space existence.

Macro infinite non-occupied space surrounds and embraces our finite occupied space. Simple concept imho.

Consciousness that includes mind/intellect accessing creatures allows for conceptulizations of finite pccupied space Universe and infinite non-occupied space.

That which we study is that which we perceive, so scientists work to reconcile the macro with the quantum, and ultimately, because the means of measurement is in itself an influential activity, the 'actual' can only be conveyed in fundamentally geometric models.

Your confusing macro infinite non-occupied space with ultra-micro and ultra-weak, gravitational space.---- gravity aka mass-attraction --- Gravitaional space is within the defintion of finite occuppied space Universe, ergo your definition(s) lack clarity and refinement. imho

The basic problem, therefore, is the actual is only represented by the imagined framework chosen to express what one wishes to say about the universe.

Imagination is is imagining an infinite occupied space. imho that is a fantasy that rolls of the lips, or fingertips easily, yet lacks the rational conclusions of {w}holistical integral existence of occupied space ergo, infinity is in indefinite, except as that which is shaped from within, by the finite occupied space Universe, which, inherently has a static absolute/fundamental shape ascertained via;

1) mind/intellect ex tetra{4}, octa{8}, icosa{20}hedra, or

2) a static picture, cross-sectional like frozen frame, of the dynamic occupied space, or 2D profile projection onto 2D surface, and

3) the 3D actual/real-time dynamic space being considered.

This means that to speak in terms of the infinite, one needs to define the particulars of that infinity, and since infinity can be expressed fractally within finite bounds, the tow concepts of finite and infinite are in no way exclusive of each other.

A fractal that is infinite is not much differrent than my mathematical friends who give example of infinite using a simple and finite formula of +1..... with dots after it inferring a conceptulization of infinity and in no way an actual/realized infinite occupied space.

Any of your given fractals are limited by a our finite occupied space Universe ergo your infinite fractal is just another mind/intellect conceptualization of infinite and not truly infinite.

It is true my concept of infinite non-occupied space is not observed, rather is naturally occurring induction based on the rational logic and common sense conclusion, that, if we life of a integral/whole, finite, occupied space Universe, then all that is left to remain outside of that occupied space reality is infinite non-occupied space.

Simple concept, with rationally logical and common sense basis, of a finite only observed occupied space Universe.

As I see it, the primary problem is one of location, because without a definite reference point, other definite terms can not made, and a location requires a relationship between co-ordinates, and hence, any spacial location is necessarily a discrete quanta.

There can exist no "location" of our finite occupied space Universe. It exists as it dyanamic ISness within the macro-infinite non-occupied space ergo, teh only reference point(s) for Universe, is limited to iself or any of its discrete quantum or collective quantum parts, imho

This indicates infinity by distinction because the distinction between something an nothing is an infinite degree, but a minimal quanta is indistinct from nothing... hence the term unoccupied space is somewhat a minomer as space itself is quantised.

Yeah, infinite degrees of non-occupied space ergo macro and mirco infinite non-occupied space. This is in some ways to those who invoke fractal or alebraic representation of infinity ergo conceptulization of mind/inellect does not neccessarily represent our finite occupied space Universe, sometimes referred to as, reality.

Ergo fractal and algebraic invoking of infinity occupied space is fantasy of imagination, ergo not reality. imho

Fuller liked to think of our macro-finite Universe as eternally subididividing ergo micro-infinite subdividing of itself i.e. micro-infinite reduction of size of quanta. He thougth that perhaps that was why we observe and expanding Universe i.e. our viewpoint was eternally shrinking via multiplication-by-division of a macro finite occupied space Universe, eternally ergo micro-infinite subdivision.

I dissagree with that assessment that was a one speculation by Fuller.

I do agree, with Lee Smolin, that, we may varying degrees of graviational spacetime quantization, but varying degrees is still a finite and not and eternally existent--- i.e. one-way-only ---micro-infinite subdivision.

If any of my givens as rationally logical and common sense conclusion, do not appaer correct, please offer with clarity, a rationally logical and common sense counter explanation to my givens comments, as stated.

r6

[Gem]

We are part of the universe that we try to describe, and even though it is thought that we study a phenomenal universe, we really only study our perception of it. When we devise a geometry, from which we derive formula, we don't explain anything about the universe; we express a representation... and ironically 'actual' universe can only refer to the perception of thought... and what 'illusion' is there apart from thought.

In that there are rules that cant be broken, criteria for dimension, one can surmise that thought behaves in a particular way... which is eloquently explained in terms of distinction... so ... from what is the universe distinct? It can't be distinct, because anything distinct is in the universe as soon as it is cognised by, or conceived of, in the mind.

It follows that the conceptual representations we use are just as real as the universe we relate them to... and what we are 'really' trying to find out isn't where the phenom universe comes from, but from where perception comes.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Occupied space Universe is all the reality that we see, percieve and study. Mind/intellect also studies matematical concepts that may or may not equate or associate as and actual reality of occupied space i.e. part of our reality is the ability to imagine/fantsize that which may not have real occupied space existence.

Macro infinite non-occupied space surrounds and embraces our finite occupied space. Simple concept imho.

Consciousness that includes mind/intellect accessing creatures allows for conceptulizations of finite pccupied space Universe and infinite non-occupied space.



Your confusing macro infinite non-occupied space with ultra-micro and ultra-weak, gravitational space.---- gravity aka mass-attraction --- Gravitaional space is within the defintion of finite occuppied space Universe, ergo your definition(s) lack clarity and refinement. imho



Imagination is is imagining an infinite occupied space. imho that is a fantasy that rolls of the lips, or fingertips easily, yet lacks the rational conclusions of {w}holistical integral existence of occupied space ergo, infinity is in indefinite, except as that which is shaped from within, by the finite occupied space Universe, which, inherently has a static absolute/fundamental shape ascertained via;

1) mind/intellect ex tetra{4}, octa{8}, icosa{20}hedra, or

2) a static picture, cross-sectional like frozen frame, of the dynamic occupied space, or 2D profile projection onto 2D surface, and

3) the 3D actual/real-time dynamic space being considered.



A fractal that is infinite is not much differrent than my mathematical friends who give example of infinite using a simple and finite formula of +1..... with dots after it inferring a conceptulization of infinity and in no way an actual/realized infinite occupied space.

Any of your given fractals are limited by a our finite occupied space Universe ergo your infinite fractal is just another mind/intellect conceptualization of infinite and not truly infinite.

It is true my concept of infinite non-occupied space is not observed, rather is naturally occurring induction based on the rational logic and common sense conclusion, that, if we life of a integral/whole, finite, occupied space Universe, then all that is left to remain outside of that occupied space reality is infinite non-occupied space.

Simple concept, with rationally logical and common sense basis, of a finite only observed occupied space Universe.



There can exist no "location" of our finite occupied space Universe. It exists as it dyanamic ISness within the macro-infinite non-occupied space ergo, teh only reference point(s) for Universe, is limited to iself or any of its discrete quantum or collective quantum parts, imho



Yeah, infinite degrees of non-occupied space ergo macro and mirco infinite non-occupied space. This is in some ways to those who invoke fractal or alebraic representation of infinity ergo conceptulization of mind/inellect does not neccessarily represent our finite occupied space Universe, sometimes referred to as, reality.

Ergo fractal and algebraic invoking of infinity occupied space is fantasy of imagination, ergo not reality. imho

Fuller liked to think of our macro-finite Universe as eternally subididividing ergo micro-infinite subdividing of itself i.e. micro-infinite reduction of size of quanta. He thougth that perhaps that was why we observe and expanding Universe i.e. our viewpoint was eternally shrinking via multiplication-by-division of a macro finite occupied space Universe, eternally ergo micro-infinite subdivision.

I dissagree with that assessment that was a one speculation by Fuller.

I do agree, with Lee Smolin, that, we may varying degrees of graviational spacetime quantization, but varying degrees is still a finite and not and eternally existent--- i.e. one-way-only ---micro-infinite subdivision.

If any of my givens as rationally logical and common sense conclusion, do not appaer correct, please offer with clarity, a rationally logical and common sense counter explanation to my givens comments, as stated.

r6

[r6r6]

Gem--We are part of the universe that we try to describe, and even though it is thought that we study a phenomenal universe, we really only study our perception of it.

Sometimes my pereception of it is the my skin burning from some source of heat. Sometimes my perception of it is my skin burning sensation from too cold.

Sometimes my perception of it is my skin burning from chemicals reaction or rubbing friction rash etc....etc... so and so on.

When we devise a geometry, from which we derive formula, we don't explain anything about the universe; we express a representation... and ironically 'actual' universe can only refer to the perception of thought... and what 'illusion' is there apart from thought.

Ditto my above etc....etc....

In that there are rules that cant be broken, criteria for dimension, one can surmise that thought behaves in a particular way... which is eloquently explained in terms of distinction... so ... from what is the universe distinct?

Finite occupied space Universe is distinct from macro-infinite non-occupied space, but now I repeat myself.

There exists a finite set of cosmic laws/principles but I repeat myself. imho How that would relate to your above "thought behaves in a particular way" I can see not connection between the two i.e. I have not idea what that means or how it connects/relates to the end of your sentence.

Lot of dissconnected short statements, that dont really seem related/connected to me. imho

It can't be distinct, because anything distinct is in the universe as soon as it is cognised by, or conceived of, in the mind.

Physical/energy precedes mind/intellect and the prior does not neccesary mean the latter will follow, so your above is not really relevant to occupied space reality that we sensorial perceive in many various way.

The sensations distinctions is another type of distinction that is also distinct like the one above in some ways--- because of the being distinct ----and diffferrent in otheways.

It follows that the conceptual representations we use are just as real as the universe we relate them to... and what we are 'really' trying to find out isn't where the phenom universe comes from, but from where perception comes.

Gem for the most part you have gone off on irrelevant tangents and at best in now way address any of my comments as stated.

Ex you bring in the question of where you Universe comes from and that certainly was not a topic in my or your last message, ergo irrelevant tangental aside.


Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed so you question of "phenom of universe comes from" is inherently moot.

I guess we can give you a small 'e' for 'e'ffort tho

r6

[Gem]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Sometimes my pereception of it is the my skin burning from some source of heat. Sometimes my perception of it is my skin burning sensation from too cold.

Sometimes my perception of it is my skin burning from chemicals reaction or rubbing friction rash etc....etc... so and so on.



Ditto my above etc....etc....




Finite occupied space Universe is distinct from macro-infinite non-occupied space, but now I repeat myself.

There exists a finite set of cosmic laws/principles but I repeat myself. imho How that would relate to your above "thought behaves in a particular way" I can see not connection between the two i.e. I have not idea what that means or how it connects/relates to the end of your sentence.

The only universe is the one that occurs as a perception in the mind. That not perceived is not known, yet exists as belief, speculative thought and theory, at least until an experiment can be designed or the experience occurs as perception.

Lot of dissconnected short statements, that dont really seem related/connected to me. imho

Physical/energy precedes mind/intellect and the prior does not neccesary mean the latter will follow, so your above is not really relevant to occupied space reality that we sensorial perceive in many various way.

The sensations distinctions is another type of distinction that is also distinct like the one above in some ways--- because of the being distinct ----and diffferrent in otheways.

Gem for the most part you have gone off on irrelevant tangents and at best in now way address any of my comments as stated.

Ex you bring in the question of where you Universe comes from and that certainly was not a topic in my or your last message, ergo irrelevant tangental aside.

Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed ergo occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed so you question of "phenom of universe comes from" is inherently moot.

I guess we can give you a small 'e' for 'e'ffort tho

r6

It's more accurate to say that matter changes, hence it isn't 'actually' created or destroyed since it has no 'actuality' of existence. It morphs as a perception, and while the perception is a constant presence there's continual change.

All it means is the universe and the mind have to operate under the same means... and it's simpler to consider them to be akin rather than separate phenomena... and the geometric models that are conceived are thoughts being perceived just as one perceives the thing that is being modeled.

The topic is more about the mechanism of arriving at the geometry, which requires the continual perception of that process, and the observation of the mind, or the mind/body if you like, is only the same as self awareness in the sense that one can tell that the perception remains present while the body/mind changes.

[r6r6]

Gem---The only universe is the one that occurs as a perception in the mind. That not perceived is not known, yet exists as belief, speculative thought and theory, at least until an experiment can be designed or the experience occurs as perception.

Dito my last response to you regarding various ways I percieve my skin burning.

It's more accurate to say that matter changes, hence it isn't 'actually' created or destroyed since it has no 'actuality' of existence. It morphs as a perception, and while the perception is a constant presence there's continual change.

Both are true not one more true than the other. Ditto my previous peception of sensation of my skin burning fro various ways.

All it means is the universe and the mind have to operate under the same means... and it's simpler to consider them to be akin rather than separate phenomena... and the geometric models that are conceived are thoughts being perceived just as one perceives the thing that is being modeled.

Our finite occupied space Universe--- physical/energy ---operative functions are associated with finite set of cosmic laws/principles ergo limits.

Access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect is not physical/energy ergo is resultant of operative functions of some boilogical consciousness'es-- physical/energy ---and is not associated with cosmic laws/principles limits.

Ex there is alledged speed-or-radiation limit yet with mind/intellect there is not speed involved and we can conceptualize via mind/intellect any speed or imaginary and irrational oxymoronic infinite speed or irrational infinite occupied space Universe etc.....

Based on your latter above, I'm not sure you actually understand the differrence between metaphysical-1 mind/intellect and the limits of physical/energy as non-biological consciousness, biological consciousness and conscious degrees of access to mind/intellect.

The topic is more about the mechanism of arriving at the geometry, which requires the continual perception of that process, and the observation of the mind, or the mind/body if you like, is only the same as self awareness in the sense that one can tell that the perception remains present while the body/mind changes.

The topic of thread is "Nature of Reality" and physical/energy is the reality--- real estate ---that on occassion may lead to accessing varying degrees of metaphysical-1 mind/intellect. imho

As I stated previous in other response to you, physical/energy ergo consciousness precedes access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect.

Ex no physical/energy brain = no access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect.

I.e. I think about something with a somethingness called a brain ergo I exist via conscious sensorial awareness--- your given "perception" ---of my existence the more complex abilities to conceive of a finite Universe, that, I conceptuall place myself outside of, as if to conceptualize my self as a God{ ess } holding the whole conceptual Universe in my conceptual hands.

As for your "geometry" I'm not sure what your going on about in those regards in the topic of the "Nature of Reality" topic. Here as in many other places, I believe you lack a refined clarity in explaining your concepts. imho

Again, I give you smalle 'e" for 'e'ffort.

r6

[Gem]

The small e is merely a strategy to shed the illusion of an upper hand, but the outcome is contrary to the purpose, I'm afraid.

Your skin burns and then it stops burning, but it is perceived continuously during that change. The same occurs as the thought is perceived as changing while the perception remains throughout. Because the material universe (burning) is perceived in much the same fashion as the thought, they can't be different in nature.

The term 'reality' is merely a notion about things that have no existence as anything in particular. That only exist as change and never quite become anything.

Of course the physical body interacts with the rest of the physical stuff. Notably, the (non physical) thoughts are felt as physical sensations as they occur... so this isn't two different things, it is the perception of thought both bodily and mindfully, or physically and subtly... this can be suggested 'burn' hypnotically, but we don't call it 'real' because it's a dream that doesn't affect the skin.

The geometry is merely a model to illustrate a point, but it exists as a thought and stems from a primary operation of of distinctions. In the Taoist school it's a function of contrast and the 'riddle' of duality is one of those unanswerable quandries... but it approaches indeterminacy as the differentiation between things is not a thing in itself; it's only distinction between them.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Dito my last response to you regarding various ways I percieve my skin burning.




Both are true not one more true than the other. Ditto my previous peception of sensation of my skin burning fro various ways.



Our finite occupied space Universe--- physical/energy ---operative functions are associated with finite set of cosmic laws/principles ergo limits.

Access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect is not physical/energy ergo is resultant of operative functions of some boilogical consciousness'es-- physical/energy ---and is not associated with cosmic laws/principles limits.

Ex there is alledged speed-or-radiation limit yet with mind/intellect there is not speed involved and we can conceptualize via mind/intellect any speed or imaginary and irrational oxymoronic infinite speed or irrational infinite occupied space Universe etc.....

Based on your latter above, I'm not sure you actually understand the differrence between metaphysical-1 mind/intellect and the limits of physical/energy as non-biological consciousness, biological consciousness and conscious degrees of access to mind/intellect.



The topic of thread is "Nature of Reality" and physical/energy is the reality--- real estate ---that on occassion may lead to accessing varying degrees of metaphysical-1 mind/intellect. imho

As I stated previous in other response to you, physical/energy ergo consciousness precedes access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect.

Ex no physical/energy brain = no access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect.

I.e. I think about something with a somethingness called a brain ergo I exist via conscious sensorial awareness--- your given "perception" ---of my existence the more complex abilities to conceive of a finite Universe, that, I conceptuall place myself outside of, as if to conceptualize my self as a God{ ess } holding the whole conceptual Universe in my conceptual hands.

As for your "geometry" I'm not sure what your going on about in those regards in the topic of the "Nature of Reality" topic. Here as in many other places, I believe you lack a refined clarity in explaining your concepts. imho

Again, I give you smalle 'e" for 'e'ffort.

r6

[r6r6]

Gem---The small e is merely a strategy to shed the illusion of an upper hand, but the outcome is contrary to the purpose, I'm afraid.

I'll believe when I see it in any actual clarifying expression by you. Very little so far. Mostly-- not totatlly -- dissconnected non-related concepts.

Your skin burns and then it stops burning, but it is perceived continuously during that change. The same occurs as the thought is perceived as changing while the perception remains throughout. Because the material universe (burning) is perceived in much the same fashion as the thought, they can't be different in nature.

Sure we can recall feelings of burning sensation to whatever degre ergo a placebo effect.

Your 2nd sentence above makes no sense to me. I think you do not yet have a clear perception of what it is want to express or the refined expressions of such.

YOur third sentence also lacks since we can have concept of burn without feeeling burning sensation and we can have burning flesh and no concept of it happening.

The term 'reality' is merely a notion about things that have no existence as anything in particular. That only exist as change and never quite become anything.

I think your lost in some imateinary illusion concepts and need to get back to reality i.e. you need to smell the roses and alot of other sensations to ground you back to reality. Real Estate.

Of course the physical body interacts with the rest of the physical stuff. Notably, the (non physical) thoughts are felt as physical sensations as they occur...

Sometimes to some degree that may be truee, but I think again your not grounded in reality if believe someone thinks burning sensation there actually going to feel it.

so this isn't two different things, it is the perception of thought both bodily and mindfully, or physically and subtly... this can be suggested 'burn' hypnotically, but we don't call it 'real' because it's a dream that doesn't affect the skin.

I think your convoluting the partial-only-sometimes significance of placebo effect, with full time reality effect.

Dreaming is irrelevant tangental asided.

The geometry is merely a model to illustrate a point, but it exists as a thought and stems from a primary operation of of distinctions. In the Taoist school it's a function of contrast and the 'riddle' of duality is one of those unanswerable quandries...

I dont know what geometry your talking about and what point your alledged geometry is allededge to make. You lack clarifying expressions of what it is may be your head. imho

but it approaches indeterminacy as the differentiation between things is not a thing in itself; it's only distinction between them.

So your "geometry" lacks "indeterminacy". That statement is meaningless to me.

I understand distinction, diffferrentiation of concepts, because our concepts are based on our the reality we have experienced.

Again you get a small 'e' for 'e'ffort gem but your lack a lot of clarity and refinement in your explanations of what, I'm not even sure of 80% of the time.

Also, nothing y0ou have stated directly addresses my messages-- in particular response to you --and you certainly have not offerred any rational logic or common sense that would invalidate any of my givens as stated.

I've offered plenty that invalidate some of yours. Small 'e' is best you have achieved in responses to me. imho

r6