There is no logic for existence

[jufa]

it doesn't need to be define further. It's clearly understandable, i thought you are smart.

Its not about what one thinks, its about what one knows, and it is clear you cannot present logic for existence, but logic for TOOTING. Does your saying it needs not be define the truth of the world? if so, why does the act of defining exist to begin with?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source os strength - jufa

[IJesusChrist]

Jufa I'll say it again;

If the universe is infinite in all planes, i.e. time & space, then the logic for existance cannot be described other than - we exist because everything else exists.

If the universe is not infinite in all planes, then we cannot know the logic for existance, we are inside the box, without being able to look outside.

Because we cannot know, does not mean that there isn't logic, it is just not approachable.

In either case, it is clear that there can not be a definite & finite reason, the reason is either infinite, or unmeasurable by logic. I.E. we would be looking at logic to why infinities exist, and why an electron is negative. We cannot know - it's an infinitely long description, but can be deduced to - 'because everything else is'. And that is good enough reason for us humans.

[overlord223]

jufa, by the time you realize that defining truth was never ending as long as you exist or me or the other person and keep arguing, there will be no conclusion until one dies and one dies and one dies and one dies and one dies.............. until you will be alone in this universe and happily,proudly announce that your wisdom was the greatest, and then you'll know that no one really cares, that truth doesn't need definition and "you" was used by that truth and you was his doll.

[David Quinn]

The real meaning of the Infinite doesn't stem from whatever happens to be revealed in a particular appearance.

A particular appearance is finite, so it's hard to confirm the infinite through the finite. The closest I've come is when I think of mathematics, geometry and art. I see Art as infinite in the similar way to how I see Math as infinite.

Yes, whatever perception we have of infinity - whether it be of the universe stretching out indefinitely, or of some conception within math or art - it always constitutes a finite appearance.

It doesn't have any dependency, for example, on the appearance of the universe stretching indefinitely in all directions.

Yes, I'm glad to hear you say that, because my reason tells me that we can't know the infinite by thinking about it like that.

Good.

Its meaning, rather, is found in the totality of all appearances, of which the appearance of a universe either stretching or not stretching indefinitely in all directions is merely one such appearance. One appearance out of countless other appearances, all of them illusory at bottom.

I just don't see how you can know this with absolute certainty. You admitted that there might be an actual bottom to the microcosm. Science can never say for sure, neither can philosophy. The bottom could exist, and little indivisible specks could lie at the bottom, blinking into existence without cause. We just can't say for certain either way.

Well, we can know for sure that things can never be uncaused (by understanding that it is logically impossible for a thing to arise without cause), but yes, we can never know for sure if the perceived universe has a bottom or not. The first is a logical issue, the second an empirical/scientific one.

We can also know for sure that the determination of whether or not the perceived universe has a bottom is meaningless in the end, as it will always be part of the uncertain realm of appearances.

Also, if the totality of appearances is illusory, then isn't the infinite itself illusory?

No, because the infinite itself can never manifest as an appearance, except through our conceptions of it. In other words, while all appearances make up the body of the infinite, the infinite itself doesn't have a particular appearance. It is the nothing which is everything, and therefore not one particular thing.

This is why it is sometimes said that it is "neither real, nor illusory". It lacks the capacity for thing-hood and thus lacks the capacity to be either real or illusory.

Plus, I just don't understand how we can even talk about the totality of appearances when we can never see them all at once.

The same way we can talk about "everything" without ever having to see everything at once. We can apprehend its qualities through logical deduction.

When you talk about the totality of appearances, are you just talking about the minds ability to be artistic, inventive or mathematical with appearances? Intuitively, I see infinite potential to arrange shapes and colors (think fractals and such). Is that what you mean?

I'm talking about every kind of appearance - physical perception, conceptual thoughts, truths, emotional feelings, sensations, artistic creations, mystical experiences, etc. Anything that the mind experiences.

-

[Loki]

I just don't see how you can know this with absolute certainty. You admitted that there might be an actual bottom to the microcosm. Science can never say for sure, neither can philosophy. The bottom could exist, and little indivisible specks could lie at the bottom, blinking into existence without cause. We just can't say for certain either way.

Well, we can know for sure that things can never be uncaused (by understanding that it is logically impossible for a thing to arise without cause),

But hold on, we have two different ideas of causality, and I'm concerned you conflate them. There is the notion of causality that points to contrast and duality (you know, the white dot in contrast to the black background). I realize you need the contrast in appearances for a thing to exist, so a thing can only exist in relation to another thing. I get that. And since I understand that, then I see how my notion of specks blinking into existence does not defy the kind of causality I just described. A thing that blinks into existence would require contrast with otherness, and it does achieve that requirement, but it also is able to pop into existence without 'the other kind' of cause.

Do you know what I mean when I talk about 2 types of causality?

We can also know for sure that the determination of whether or not the perceived universe has a bottom is meaningless in the end, as it will always be part of the uncertain realm of appearances.

I understand that, we are in agreement there.

Also, if the totality of appearances is illusory, then isn't the infinite itself illusory?

No, because the infinite itself can never manifest as an appearance, except through our conceptions of it. In other words, while all appearances make up the body of the infinite, the infinite itself doesn't have a particular appearance. It is the nothing which is everything, and therefore not one particular thing.

ok, I figured out what's confusing me. I don't see how it's coherent to even talk about the totality of all appearances (unless you are referring to them as finite) when appearances require consciousness. It's like talking about the infinite totality of beans in all the cans in the world. Since the amount of cans in the world is finite, then the totality of beans in all those cans will be finite. It doesn't make sense to talk about infinite beans. Because the beans are in their finite cans, which are finite in number. (just assume beans aren't found outside cans, or else the metaphor falls apart). So likewise, the infinite totality of appearances just doesn't sit well with me.

This is why it is sometimes said that it is "neither real, nor illusory". It lacks the capacity for thing-hood and thus lacks the capacity to be either real or illusory.

Well.... the only way I can make sense of consciousness is to picture it as discriminatory. Being conscious of one thing always seems to be at the expense of not being conscious of another. There is filtering. However, I can't help but wonder if their is a cosmic consciousness which pervades all matter, and it experiences the totality of all things. I have no idea how this could be possible, but I can't rule it out.

When you talk about the totality of appearances, are you just talking about the minds ability to be artistic, inventive or mathematical with appearances? Intuitively, I see infinite potential to arrange shapes and colors (think fractals and such). Is that what you mean?

I'm talking about every kind of appearance - physical perception, conceptual thoughts, truths, emotional feelings, sensations, artistic creations, mystical experiences, etc. Anything that the mind experiences.

But like I said above - the amount of minds out there are finite, and what the mind experiences is created by the mind itself, so what the mind produces is finite, and the minds themselves are finite. So I'm only seeing the finite here.

[Steven Coyle]

how to lok:

the elephant strides through the moon's eleventh lancer

[Pincho Paxton]

But hold on, we have two different ideas of causality, and I'm concerned you conflate them. There is the notion of causality that points to contrast and duality (you know, the white dot in contrast to the black background). I realize you need the contrast in appearances for a thing to exist, so a thing can only exist in relation to another thing. I get that. And since I understand that, then I see how my notion of specks blinking into existence does not defy the kind of causality I just described. A thing that blinks into existence would require contrast with otherness, and it does achieve that requirement, but it also is able to pop into existence without 'the other kind' of cause.

Do you know what I mean when I talk about 2 types of causality?

That's looped causality, and it actually breaks causality from the chain of events. So really it's cause without cause, or the fact that no matter actually causes matter to happen. It's like digging a hole in the sand at the bottom of the sea to make a hole with nothing in it, and the sea is an infinite sea.. you can't empty the hole from water no matter how much you dig. It's the same with a Black Hole.. maths may say it has infinite gravity, but the hole is instantly filled with infinite Aether, so it does soon reach a point where the Black Hole is full, and then becomes a bubble.

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn: Yes, whatever perception we have of infinity - whether it be of the universe stretching out indefinitely, or of some conception within math or art - it always constitutes a finite appearance.

David, explain to me how this is not a wholly assumptive statement, being that you cannot present the infinity of you so as to speak from an absolute position of what infinity "always is."

Even from the position of logic, it is illogical to say that infinity always constitutes a finite appearance, for if it always constituted a finite appearance, there would not be an awareness of infinity, only of finiteness. If what you said were absolutely true, then we would be speaking only of "finity" and never of infinity.

[David Quinn]

David Quinn: Yes, whatever perception we have of infinity - whether it be of the universe stretching out indefinitely, or of some conception within math or art - it always constitutes a finite appearance.

David, explain to me how this is not a wholly assumptive statement, being that you cannot present the infinity of you so as to speak from an absolute position of what infinity "always is."

Even from the position of logic, it is illogical to say that infinity always constitutes a finite appearance, for if it always constituted a finite appearance, there would not be an awareness of infinity, only of finiteness. If what you said were absolutely true, then we would be speaking only of "finity" and never of infinity.

Since the perception of infinity is just one appearance out of countless others, it has limitations. It begins and ends with the rise and fall of the appearance.

-

[Jamesh]

Loki: You admitted that there might be an actual bottom to the microcosm. Science can never say for sure, neither can philosophy. The bottom could exist, and little indivisible specks could lie at the bottom, blinking into existence without cause. We just can't say for certain either way.

Jufa: If the universe is infinite in all planes, i.e. time & space, then the logic for existence cannot be described other than - we exist because everything else exists.

I for one disagree with such comments, although I know of no one who has achieved certainty in understanding the infinite as a process.

Via logic, we can deduce what the universe can and cannot be, simply by examining the concepts of the finite and infinity and what they can and cannot be, thus we can know it in that sense.

We can't observe or scientifically test it, but it can become a sort of "henid truth" made up of component absolute truths such as "everything has a cause", a truth that arises via the same sort of logic. The trouble is that "everything has a cause" is really a simple little dualistic concept, whereas to gain an understanding of physical reality from a infinite reference point, requires that all such dualistic absolutes be held as a synergistic "thought sequence".

All memories in our brains are dualistic - like a computer they are work only with electricity, so when it comes to the crunch they are polarised, and in being so are at core dualistic.

Our thoughts are kind of 2 dimensional, being lines of electrons they are strings of data. They stem from the sheer multiplicity of information in one's memory, that taken as a whole could be loosely called a "3 dimensional subconscious". It is the web of neural linkages based of many dualistic concepts that creates this 3 dimensionally.

The use of the term "dimensions" here is merely a poor descriptor for what I'm trying to say. I'm not talking literally, but really about the way duality fits into infinity. One dualistic concept, say like the black to white spectrum of colour where there are diametrical absolute opposites, is simply one radial plane in the circle of infinity. The dualistic radius can be drawn at any angle, and there are an infinity of angles, so therefore technically there can be an infinity of appearances.

In the end "appearances" are just thoughts, and are linear streams of data. There may be lots of separate streams flowing through the frontal lobes at the same time like down a telephone line, but our "thought" awareness in any instant can only pick up some (or maybe even just one) of these dualistic streams to be aware of. There may be separate streams for each of the senses, including the internal sense we call thought, which combined with some form of multi-processing tool in the brain provide us with the sense of awareness. It is merely the sheer speed of the flow of these data sets that creates a sense of a continuous consciousness.

Infinity however is non-linear - its modus operandi is all ways at once (though with time it is also linear). So therefore we cannot hold infinity in our awareness, as that would require us to see too many steams of duality sets at the same instant, something our brains cannot do with thoughts - its busy enough processing info from the senses (though I am told some drugs like Ayahuasca suggest otherwise, but maybe they are just data read accelerators).

So we cannot have thoughts that truly "know" infinity in an awareness sense, but what we can do is work out how to logically sequence absolute concepts, thus allowing us to feel we understand it's attributes to a sufficient degree to know it in a satisfying way. One can become free of the uneasiness of the unknown.

One first has to find as many of both finite and infinite reality absolutes as we can. In finding such absolutes, sure, we are limited by the limitations of the tools we have to observe reality, but that doesn’t matter, we can find enough - too many would just make cognition harder. In relation to absolutes of infinity, the absolutes are abstract due only in the sense of being unobservable, but they are also easy in that with infinity the logic becomes simply that something must only be one way or the exact opposite.

Also, if the totality of appearances is illusory, then isn't the infinite itself illusory?

There is Existence. There is Causality. Existence + Causality = Continuation.

Existence cannot be made non-existent, as there is no cause that can take away from the totality. Causes can only work on what exists, not what does not.

Causality cannot be made non-causal, as a cause cannot be caused to be non-causal, and if non-casual in the first place has no attribute to become a cause.

Non-existence and non-causality cannot exist within a totality, as there is nothing to cause them to exist.

Existence and Causality must exist as there is nothing to cause them to not exist, nor is there anything that is not already them, that could cause them to exist. (the italicised bit is important later on)

[at this point my logic goes off the rails in parts, clearly I do not have the required "synergistic thought sequence", mentioned above. However whether I'm partly right or mostly wrong doesn't matter as this issue is more just an interesting hobby rather than anything useful. I feel like I'm on the right track though.]

Binary logic, as necessary in relation to infinity absolutes, says that either

a) Existence and Causality are one and the same and have always existed as they are, without change, so will always be as they are without change.

b) Existence causes more Causality and Causality in turn causes more Existence, in an infinite expansionary circle.

If a) is correct, as believed by the QRS, then this still leaves questions/ problems like -

Just why does the universe have any size or differentiation at all, let alone be one we can see no ending to. What really is the cause of spatial area, and what does it mean for it to be infinite?

Is it because we simply cannot grasp infinity due to all our thoughts being limited finite dualistic absolutes, thus illusionary. Maybe, but then we can sufficiently grasp the infinity of endless time, so why not this form of infinity?

What would cause absolutes applicable to the finite, to not also apply to the infinite, or vice versa unless there is logical evidence to prove that they don’t?

One absolute truth is that forms of causal-existence evolve and devolve. Many to one, one to many, endlessly. So no loss of causality, no loss of existence, but that still leaves the question of from what "one" does causality in all things come from in the first place. As there is a growth and decline process in all things might this also apply to The Totality - what would cause a different set of rules to apply between all the things that make up the totality and the Totality.

Here is the problem - If you try and apply "Many to One, One to Many", to The Totality then this becomes physically impossible. Were the totality ever "One", or ever to become "One", then causality would be obliterated, as there would be no dualism and thus causality simply could not exist and this would also mean that existence couldn't exist either, as without causality there is no existence.

These sorts of paradoxical problems cause me to favour b), and by quite reasonably considering both causality and existence as, by necessity, having a prior cause, that means whatever causes those "universe attributes" can be the One from which the Many stem.

Existence, Causality if viewed as mere aspects of Reality, makes reality a dualistic entity. The first is physicality or general thingness or content-as-content (not form), or relative, warped or gravitised space, competing forces or whatever. Essentially existence is the content of causality, whereas causation is the "action" of this content, the changing form. However, as no part of existence is not-causal, then where is the existence, where is the actual content, and what then is causality without content.

Nor can their combination non-dualistically as Reality, cause an expansion of the totality.

It is rather easy to acknowledge that the totality has no outside, and as there would be no boundary to cause any end to spatiality, therefore it must be spatially infinite.

It's the ramifications of this that I cannot accept. I cannot accept that there are is infinity of this galaxy, exactly the same, as well as there being an infinity of others with 1 atom difference, an infinity with 2 atoms out of place, and so on infinitely, at this very instant. Now even if this were the case, then it would not really be entirely infinite, for to be entirely infinite surely must mean to be all there is. As it is not entirely infinite that means it is bounded by something else. This suggests even the infinite, the totality is actually bounded and contained in some manner.

Using Time as the cause of Causality/Existence, wipes many of these problems/paradoxes away.

Time is the only non-dualistic entity that could be called a One. By it's very nature it is endless. My reasoning says that it is endless because it expands upon itself.

But I'm afraid as people only see Time as being an Effect of causality, an outcome, rather than the fundamental cause and content of everything, the oneness of everything, then they don’t get to first base. The "thought sequence" regarding infinity is not in order, and thus does not compute.

At the same time they'll also say that all effects ARE also causes, however if one views time as an effect, then what subsequent cause occurs.

Or they will say Time is not even an effect, it is merely what we call causality, it's an illusion stemming from causality being what it is. Well then explain to me what causality actually does, just how does it work, and why it exists and then I’ll reconsider.

These questions are not addressed in David's Wisdom of the Infinite, for example. In fact, he actually says "In the end, the affirmation of the principle of causation only requires one thing from us - namely, the recognition that nothing can arise without any cause whatsoever".

All I am doing is taking that literally. As causation clearly exists, and exists in both linear and non-linear forms, then causation itself must have a cause. Time, exists in the "as an effect" viewpoint because of Linear causation, but such a viewpoint completely disregards how the non-linear component of causations duality is able to have this linear flow. I would think causality that "just was" in being everything already, would only be of the non-linear variety (and thus there would be no things).

No, Times Arrow is real. It is what allows for the existence of linear causality, which in turn allows form to manifest. As a real entity linear causality becomes possible via the process of times continuous expansion, and non-linear causality is possible due to the fact that Time never becomes non-existent. Linear causality occurs via the infinitely greater domain of non-linear causality, it is merely its "leading edge", just as Times continuously flowing forward leading edge, is simply the most recently expanded portion of time.

In the context of an expansionary time, I do need here to provide a definition of what The Past is. When I use this term, I am not referring to the past that exists in our consciousness. That is mere remembering the form that was of the configuration of the universe at that point in our linear causal chain. The form that existed then no longer exists.

Rather, the past continues to exist only as the content of the Now, not the form. Essentially the past is what folks refer to as Mass and Gravity, but in my case I am viewing these effects as being caused by Time. Mass signifies that that spatial territory is expanding from a smaller base, than the expansion that is occurring now, due to all the subsequent accumulative expansion that has occurred in the meantime. To our minds this creates the illusion that the thing with mass is somehow condensed, nope, it is not condensed, as each moment passes it is merely becoming further away from our ability to observe it, and in fact it is not getting smaller but growing larger, but growing at a slower speed than us. Gravity, nuclear forces are simply this action over time.

The fact that the present is always becoming greater than the past, means that the present will be of limited infinity, well sort of. Although as Time has no beginning, and therefore the past is infinite, and thus time has therefore already expanded infinitely one would think this has to mean that the present is infinite spatially, and so it is. The thing is though, is that under this scenario, two things are not possible. Firstly an infinity of the same form, such as the form of our galaxy, will not be infinitely repeated.

Time allows me to accept spatial infinity far easier. Horizontal infinity is the infinities of infinites scenario mentioned above, whereas, a universe wherein Expanding Time is the casual base, allows for a different kind of infinite scenario. It allows for a universe that is infinite vertically, but not horizontally, and even though it is not infinite horizontally, this does not signify the necessity of there being an outside.

A vertical universe (or more accurately, a triangularly structured universe) is less likely to mean that there are an infinite number of infinities of the same thing, as it provides for the hierarchy required for the evolution of things, and via this evolutionary path, only certain things can exist on the same universal plane. While there might be zillions of galaxies similar to ours, there will not be an infinite number of galaxies exactly the same. At the top of this hierarchy exists what one could call God - but this God is a complete non-event, it is the Totality. It is utterly powerless - it is not a being that has externality so there is nothing it can affect, therefore it has no consciousness, nor thoughts or actions of any kind, zippo. All it does is way back at base one, it just expands time, it makes more of itself, otherwise a totality would not exist.

Rider: All things are just relative differentiation. The universe may not really be a spatial entity. Rather than having any space, everything might be just differentiations within something that does not require any space in its own right - but due to the differentiation the effect is space and distance and speed and all those things. If this is the case, then Time is the only option for the cause of these effects - all others forms would require an eternal duality to cause the required differentiation.


I'm not posting these ponderings to seek comments, merely just to comment.

[jufa]

Thank you Jamesh for such an indepth Conceptual examination of existence and causation. I will just say, through it all, no logical causation was defined, only assumed because

no one who has achieved certainty in understanding the infinite as a process.

The same goes for the following presentation of assumption from the men and books therein brought to life in your conscious awareness.

Paradoxes and tangled hierarchies

Normally, we identify only with the experiences associated with a particular brain-body. In order to explain how universal consciousness might identify with a such a physical object (the combined sensory mechanism-brain structure), Goswami [Amit Goswami - author The Self-Aware Universe, 1993] utilizes the concept of a tangled hierarchy which he borrowed from the 1980 book by Douglas Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. He gave the following analogy in order to illustrate this concept.

We first introduce the concept of logical types. An example of logical types is the following:

1. People who make statements

2. Statements

An item which defines the context for another item is of a higher logical type than that of the other item. In the example above, the first item identifies objects (people) that define the context for the second item (statements that people make). Thus, people are of a higher logical type than statements.

Next we define a self-referential system. An example is the following:

1. The following statement is true.

2. The preceding statement is true.

Both of these items are of the same logical type since they are both statements. However, they refer to each other, making the system self-referential. In addition, the statements reinforce each other, strengthening the validity of each.

Now consider a paradoxical system of items of the same logical type:

1. The following statement is true.

2. The preceding statement is false.

If the first statement is true, the second statement makes it false, etc., thus leading to an infinite series of opposite conclusions. This is a paradox. All logical paradoxes arise from self-referential systems, i.e., systems that refer to themselves rather than to something outside of themselves.

We can reformulate both the reinforcing and paradoxical systems as single statements:

3. This statement is true (reinforcing).

4. This statement is false (paradoxical infinite series).

Now consider the following self-referential system:

5. I am a liar.

Let us consider three alternative interpretations of this statement.

a) If the "I" is the statement itself, then this does not mix logical types and is equivalent to the paradoxical infinite series of statement number 4 above.

b) However, if I am the person that is making the statement, I am of a higher logical type (I am the context of) than the statement I am making. Now there need be no paradox because the statement does not refer to itself or to another statement of the same logical type, but to I, which is of a higher logical type. If the statement does not affect its context, there is no mixing of the level of the statement with the level of its context. Thus, we do not yet have a tangled hierarchy because the clear delineation between the two levels is maintained.

One can say that the infinite series of interpretation a) may be discontinuously terminated by a shift in the meaning of "I" in order to obtain interpretation b). In this way, the paradox is eliminated.

c) Now suppose I start to think about the statement, and I begin to take it seriously, perhaps even believing it. The statement is affecting its context, and it changes it. Assuming that I was not a liar initially, I could actually become a liar, which would be a radical change in the context. If I become a thoroughgoing, inveterate liar and cannot make a truthful statement, a paradox develops. If I never tell the truth, and I state that I am a liar, then I am not lying, etc. The two levels have become inextricably entangled in a paradoxical, tangled hierarchy.

[David Quinn]

Well, we can know for sure that things can never be uncaused (by understanding that it is logically impossible for a thing to arise without cause),

But hold on, we have two different ideas of causality, and I'm concerned you conflate them. There is the notion of causality that points to contrast and duality (you know, the white dot in contrast to the black background). I realize you need the contrast in appearances for a thing to exist, so a thing can only exist in relation to another thing. I get that. And since I understand that, then I see how my notion of specks blinking into existence does not defy the kind of causality I just described. A thing that blinks into existence would require contrast with otherness, and it does achieve that requirement, but it also is able to pop into existence without 'the other kind' of cause.

Do you know what I mean when I talk about 2 types of causality?

I do, but the distinction is illusory at bottom.

Your specks necessarily depend on precise causal conditions - e.g. on the universe having a bottom, on time and space existing, on there not being anything standing in the way of their arisal, on they're having the kind of nature that allows them to pop into existence in that fashion, etc.

Their existence is just as much dependent on these things as it is on contrast and duality.

Also, if the totality of appearances is illusory, then isn't the infinite itself illusory?

No, because the infinite itself can never manifest as an appearance, except through our conceptions of it. In other words, while all appearances make up the body of the infinite, the infinite itself doesn't have a particular appearance. It is the nothing which is everything, and therefore not one particular thing.

ok, I figured out what's confusing me. I don't see how it's coherent to even talk about the totality of all appearances (unless you are referring to them as finite) when appearances require consciousness. It's like talking about the infinite totality of beans in all the cans in the world. Since the amount of cans in the world is finite, then the totality of beans in all those cans will be finite. It doesn't make sense to talk about infinite beans. Because the beans are in their finite cans, which are finite in number. (just assume beans aren't found outside cans, or else the metaphor falls apart). So likewise, the infinite totality of appearances just doesn't sit well with me.

You're kind of missing the point here. You're still trying to establish some kind of objective reality within the realm of appearances, and thus repeating the mistake of trying to establish whether or not the perceived universe extends indefinitely in all directions.

The appearance of the moment is all there ever is.

This is why it is sometimes said that it is "neither real, nor illusory". It lacks the capacity for thing-hood and thus lacks the capacity to be either real or illusory.

Well.... the only way I can make sense of consciousness is to picture it as discriminatory. Being conscious of one thing always seems to be at the expense of not being conscious of another. There is filtering. However, I can't help but wonder if their is a cosmic consciousness which pervades all matter, and it experiences the totality of all things. I have no idea how this could be possible, but I can't rule it out.

It hinges on whether consciousness is necessarily discriminatory in nature. If it is, then cosmic consciousness is impossible.

Can there be consciousness without discrimination. - i.e. without distinguishable objects of consciousness? If there is, then it would be completely unlike consciousness as we know it. There would be no perception, no remembering, no ruminating, no forward-planning, no willing, no purposeful activity. For all intents and purposes, it would be equivalent to unconsciousness.

We could go all poetic and say that the Universe has a kind of cosmic consciousness in that, being the process of cause and effect, it is everywhere present and thus in touch with everything and thus "knows" everything. But this kind of knowing is completely unlike what we normally call "knowing".

-

[Jamesh]

Jufa,

I'm not the only one who considers it logical that time grows.

There was a documentary on TV tonight "WHAT TIME IS IT?" made by "Brian Cox, Particle physicist Professor", in which spoke to Kay Dowker, who spoke of time growing. It was low level stuff though, so I looked her up.

Wiki says:
Dr. Helen Fay Dowker is a British theoretical physicist based at Imperial College London. Having studied at the University of Cambridge, Dowker completed her Ph.D. under the supervision of Stephen Hawking.

Dowker conducts research in a number of areas of theoretical physics including quantum gravity and causal set theory, and is currently a reader in the theoretical physics group at Imperial College London, having previously worked at Queen Mary, University of London.


Here she says the following:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ?full=true

Real time

04 October 2003 by Fay Dowker

NOTHING is more fundamental to human experience than the impression of time passing. We can hardly make sense of our lives other than in the context of a fixed past of events that can never be changed and a future of unrealised potentialities. Between them sits the mysterious and elusive moment of "now".

This basic human perception of the flow of time is, however, at odds with accepted scientific theory. In Einstein's general relativity, space and time are combined into the indivisible block known as space-time, in which past, present and future all exist together. Space-time is a frozen fabric that does not evolve. Our own existence, from birth to death, is set out in space-time in a timeless way. There is no flow, and no place for now.

At least that is the generally accepted way of looking at it. But there is another way of thinking about space-time that I and others believe may reclaim time and allow it to flow. It arises from our attempts to tackle the problem of quantum gravity: the problem of how to unify general relativity with our other most successful theory, quantum mechanics. Our approach is called "causal set theory", and it was proposed in 1987 by Rafael Sorkin of Syracuse University in New York state and colleagues. In recent years, we have discovered how, in causal set theory, space-time can "grow" in such a way that time appears to flow rather than being a static dimension.

Anyway, I'm off now to see what else she has to say.

In relation to the topic, and its self-referential nature, well I'm afraid thats just how the subject matter is - everything has to be linked, as everything is interconnected in reality. If I was young, rather than old and tired, I'd study the physics, maths, topology, whatever, so as to make it not appear to be "inextricably entangled in a paradoxical, tangled hierarchy" (which btw would be many peoples description of the universe).

She also says: "Most physicists believe that in any final theory of quantum gravity, space-time itself will be quantised and grainy in nature".

No doubt there is graininess as an effect, but is space-time quantised?. In a way it is. Space-time, at the most fundamental level, is not quantised as it is being caused, its just expanding time at that point, but it immediately becomes quantised, because it almost immediately becomes relative to everything that presently exists, and fractures into quantum units. At all times though these quantum units rest upon the continuously created holisyic bed of space-times intrinsic 4-Dness. There is still this fleeting fabric.

[jufa]

It is my honor to discuss this subject matter with you strictly on that basis of discussion, and not in an effort to prove anything right or wrong. What I appreciate about this conversation is both of us deals with the supject at hand by giving evidence as to why we have come to the point of where we are.

I understand your position on the finalize discovery that

"Most physicists believe that in any final theory of quantum gravity, space-time itself will be quantised and grainy in nature".

because the theory of the universe being that of transcending metaphysical [Amit Goswami theorm] has flaws, as Stephen Hawkink's theory of nothing being escapable from a black hole, - which the majority of most physcist adhered to until David Susskind's 'string theory' forced Hawkin to reevaluate, and abandon his position after more than twenty [20] some odd years. So what the majority of theoretical physicist believe does not give evidence of reality.

I also have my position on this matter. It goes beyond the mind of intellect and theoretical physics into mysticism, but that is not of the subject matter here. I will present the following methphysical view for your consideration.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Space, time, causality, and destiny

The concepts of space and time

In the meditation for April 12 in A New of Jewels (1996), Ramesh says,
"The crux of man's dilemma lies in the concept of time. While chasing his mythical happiness of the future, man has no time to enjoy the present moment. And actually there is no such thing as the present because by the time one thinks of it, it has already become the past. Therefore, what is vital is not thinking about the present but actually being the present moment -- and that is nothing other than enlightenment."

On page 316 of I Am That (1984), Nisargadatta Maharaj says,

"It is the clinging to the false that makes the true so difficult to see. Once you understand that the false needs time and what needs time is false, you are nearer the Reality, which is timeless, ever in the now. Eternity in time is mere repetitiveness, like the movement of a clock. It flows from the past into the future endlessly, an empty perpetuity. Reality is what makes the present so vital, so different from the past and future, which are merely mental. If you need time to achieve something, it must be false. The real is always with you; you need not wait to be what you are."

And on p. 525, he says,

"Before the mind, I am. 'I am' is not a thought in the mind; the mind happens to me, I do not happen to the mind. And since time and space are in the mind, I am beyond time and space, eternal and omnipresent."

Consciousness is all there is. The reality of Awareness/Presence is not a concept. Everything else is. Space is a concept that is no more real than the objects that appear in it. The concept of the three dimensions of space allows the concept of three-dimensional objects to appear. All spatial objects are purely conceptual, including the human body.

The conceptual nature of space is clarified if we think of the difference between the sense of "hereness" (the sense of hereness/nowness is called the sense of Presence) and the concept of "here". The concept "here" implies the concept "there", which is equivalent to "not here". Thus, the unbroken wholeness of hereness has been conceptually divided into two parts, here and there. Without the concept of space, there is only the wholeness of hereness.

Without the concept of three-dimensional space, there is no concept of three-dimensional depth, so all spatial forms appear at the same "depth" in the mind. This immediately becomes clear when we close our eyes and everything appears at the same depth. With our eyes closed, there is no occlusion of one object by another as there is with our eyes open. When we open our eyes again, thoughts and "external" objects seem to appear at different depths. However, since there is no intrinsic difference between thought and perception, without the concept of depth, thoughts and objects both appear at the same depth.

Exercise: Close your eyes and see if objects (images) appear at different depths. What do you see?

Because the body is bilateral, we conceptualize space into left/right. Because gravity and our sense of balance keep us right-side-up, we conceptualize space into up/down. However, even with our eyes closed and there are no visual images, there are still body sensations (called proprioception) which give us the sense of horizontal and vertical orientation and movement.

Question: How can a blind person conceptualize depth?

The concept of successive frames in space (e.g., in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory caused by successive wavefunction collapses,forms a succession that allows the concept of time to appear. The concept of time is complementary to the concept of space, and forms a fourth dimension that is perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions. Because the concept of time depends on the concept of change, we have the equivalencies: time=change=duration=succession. As with space, it becomes clear that time is only a concept if we compare the sense of "nowness" (from the sense of hereness/nowness) with the concept "now". The concept "now" implies the concept "then", which is equivalent to "not now". The unbroken wholeness of nowness has been broken into two parts, now and then. Without the concept of time, there is only the wholeness of nowness. One well-known attempt to point to the Reality that transcends conceptual space-time is the 1971 book by Ram Dass entitled, "Be Here Now". (Reportedly, at one time it was the third most popular book in English, next only to the Bible and Dr. Spock's baby manual.)

Exercise: For the next few days, as often as you can remember it, practice being here now. What was your experience? Was it worth continuing the practice?

The concept of time depends on the concept of memory, without which we could not compare successive frames and thus form the concept of change. Without change, there is no experience, so all thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, and perceptions are experiences that depend on the concept of memory. Time can be conceptually divided into two major parts, past and future, which are inseparable polar opposites (this is a more conventional division than dividing it into now and then as in the previous paragraph). The concept of now becomes nothing more than a conceptual boundary between the conceptual past and conceptual future.

Exercise: Close your eyes. Do you feel that you are in your head?
Again close your eyes. Now before thoughts and images arise, see if time exists for you. Do you feel that you are here, now in your head?
Again close your eyes, but now go inward and downward into the body. Do you feel that you are here, now in the whole body?

Without the concepts of time and space, all further conceptualization is impossible. In particular, the concept of the personal identity arises from the persistency of the concepts of the body-mind, personal doership, and choice. Without such persistency, the conceptual "I" could not arise. Thus, the "I" depends on the concept of time. In timelessness, there is no "I".

[IJesusChrist]

For those who still don't understand time & space.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Technically after the 4th dimension I do not agree, I believe in determinism, and true determinism has no 'chance'. So there would less dimensions possible. i.e. there would probably be maximum 6.

[Pam Seeback]

David Quinn: Since the perception of infinity...

There cannot be an activity of thinking of "perception of infinity", because perception is an emanation (thought) of infinity. In other words, effects are effects, and being effects, do not and cannot, perceive cause. Effects are effects; cause is cause. In the case of Infinite thought relativity (man's pure spirit nature) and finite thought relativity (man's intellectual [dual] nature), the latter is the visible effect of the former, its invisible cause.

David Quinn: [Since the perception of infinity] has limitations...

Expanding on what I put forward above, since perception is an effect, and never a cause, it is not that perception has limitations (an effect cannot have anything), it is that perception IS (the manifestation of) limitations. And to further expand on this thought, the perception that is the manifestation of limitations is the IT to which you refer in your statement

It begins and ends with the rise and fall of the appearance.

which leads me to ask this question: how can a limitation give rise and fall to another limitation, or put another way, how can an appearance give rise to another appearance? Can you tell me how It, the appearance, the perception - the illusion - can give rise or fall to anything, when it is, itself, the activity of rising and falling as appearance, as perception, as illusion?

The message of those who have awakened to the realization that the child cannot birth to the parent is that Infinity is living you and me and all who are reading these words this very moment by way of, or by virtue of Its INVISIBLE laws, principles and patterns of "let there be, and there was." This makes everyone an expression of Infinity in the eternality of NOW. If you agree with this statement, that we are expressions of Infinity being lived NOW, how then can you or I or anyone STOP or freeze their Infinity of NOW moment so as to "peer" into this moment of infinity and dissect, analyze or comprehend Its never-ceasing, never-changing, infinite, eternal laws? Is this not what the philosophy of "logic" is attempting to do? To put infinity into the arms of the finite, so as to see "IT", so as hear "IT", so as to taste "IT", so as to smell "IT" and so as to touch "IT?"

In not realizing he is being held in the permanent arm of Infinity NOW, man suffers to hold Infinity in his arms of dust (his intellect of temporal imagination). Man tries and tries to nail jelly to the wall, when all the while he cannot see that he IS the jelly, he IS the nail and he IS the wall being nailed. Silly, silly man. :)

[Pincho Paxton]

For those who still don't understand time & space.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Technically after the 4th dimension I do not agree, I believe in determinism, and true determinism has no 'chance'. So there would less dimensions possible. i.e. there would probably be maximum 6.

I don't think you will learn anything from that. dimensions should be.. 0,1,2,3 where zero is the 4th dimension that never quite manages to exist. I would get rid of anything higher than 3 so that we are connected to everything.

[IJesusChrist]

Pincho! Stop eating that!

[Loki]

Well, we can know for sure that things can never be uncaused (by understanding that it is logically impossible for a thing to arise without cause),

But hold on, we have two different ideas of causality, and I'm concerned you conflate them. There is the notion of causality that points to contrast and duality (you know, the white dot in contrast to the black background). I realize you need the contrast in appearances for a thing to exist, so a thing can only exist in relation to another thing. I get that. And since I understand that, then I see how my notion of specks blinking into existence does not defy the kind of causality I just described. A thing that blinks into existence would require contrast with otherness, and it does achieve that requirement, but it also is able to pop into existence without 'the other kind' of cause.

Do you know what I mean when I talk about 2 types of causality?

I do, but the distinction is illusory at bottom.

Your specks necessarily depend on precise causal conditions - e.g. on the universe having a bottom, on time and space existing, on there not being anything standing in the way of their arisal, on they're having the kind of nature that allows them to pop into existence in that fashion, etc.

Their existence is just as much dependent on these things as it is on contrast and duality.

hmmm... ok, that's fair. I agree with you there.

You're kind of missing the point here. You're still trying to establish some kind of objective reality within the realm of appearances, and thus repeating the mistake of trying to establish whether or not the perceived universe extends indefinitely in all directions.

The appearance of the moment is all there ever is.

You know, I think I'm starting to understand. If we define the finite as that which appears, then the infinite is that which can't logically appear. I think I'm very close to realizing the non-dual. In fact, I think I've got. I just need some time to get comfortable with it. The thing that's really bothering me (obviously) is the possibility of a totality that doesn't expand in all directions. However, I'm starting to see how even if the totality is finite, it is still infinite in the sense that it is incapable of manifesting.

You see, I'm approaching a point where I see two different kinds of finiteness. There is the finiteness of an appearance, and then there is the finiteness of a certain kind of totality. The later type of finiteness perhaps can be regarded as infinite, in the way you have demonstrated. It is beyond relativity, it has no size, incapable of manifesting, etc.

It hinges on whether consciousness is necessarily discriminatory in nature. If it is, then cosmic consciousness is impossible.

Can there be consciousness without discrimination. - i.e. without distinguishable objects of consciousness? If there is, then it would be completely unlike consciousness as we know it. There would be no perception, no remembering, no ruminating, no forward-planning, no willing, no purposeful activity. For all intents and purposes, it would be equivalent to unconsciousness.

We could go all poetic and say that the Universe has a kind of cosmic consciousness in that, being the process of cause and effect, it is everywhere present and thus in touch with everything and thus "knows" everything. But this kind of knowing is completely unlike what we normally call "knowing".

hmmm. Ok. Well, you're right, consciousness as we know it is inherently limited to certain principles. And if we are defining "infinite" as that which is beyond manifestation, then I suppose I am 100% confident that infinite consciousness is impossible.

[jufa]

Well, we can know for sure that things can never be uncaused (by understanding that it is logically impossible for a thing to arise without cause),

But hold on, we have two different ideas of causality, and I'm concerned you conflate them. There is the notion of causality that points to contrast and duality (you know, the white dot in contrast to the black background). I realize you need the contrast in appearances for a thing to exist, so a thing can only exist in relation to another thing. I get that. And since I understand that, then I see how my notion of specks blinking into existence does not defy the kind of causality I just described. A thing that blinks into existence would require contrast with otherness, and it does achieve that requirement, but it also is able to pop into existence without 'the other kind' of cause.

Do you know what I mean when I talk about 2 types of causality?


I do, but the distinction is illusory at bottom.

Your specks necessarily depend on precise causal conditions - e.g. on the universe having a bottom, on time and space existing, on there not being anything standing in the way of their arisal, on they're having the kind of nature that allows them to pop into existence in that fashion, etc.

Their existence is just as much dependent on these things as it is on contrast and duality.

As stated in boldness in the 1st sentence, then without a cause appearing, or being pointed out in the conversation between Quinn & loki, then "There is no cause for existence" to exist. Being this to be true, the white and black dot contrast presentation of causation, is no more than and idea as indicated, because there is no cause for the white & and black dot to exist being there is no cause for existence., there then can be no relative point of reference for the otherness spoken of above.

When an illusionary bottom is spoken of above, what is it besides the human mind that give this illusion bottom foundation of definition? An illusion is no more than an illusion.

David Quinn wrote:
You're kind of missing the point here. You're still trying to establish some kind of objective reality within the realm of appearances, and thus repeating the mistake of trying to establish whether or not the perceived universe extends indefinitely in all directions.

The appearance of the moment is all there ever is.

This is true. The moment is all that exist, and it is the moment which is the fullness of being defined indefinitely in all directions of ones ware of.

loki wrote:

You know, I think I'm starting to understand. If we define the finite as that which appears, then the infinite is that which can't logically appear. I think I'm very close to realizing the non-dual. In fact, I think I've got. I just need some time to get comfortable with it. The thing that's really bothering me (obviously) is the possibility of a totality that doesn't expand in all directions. However, I'm starting to see how even if the totality is finite, it is still infinite in the sense that it is incapable of manifesting.

You see, I'm approaching a point where I see two different kinds of finiteness. There is the finiteness of an appearance, and then there is the finiteness of a certain kind of totality. The later type of finiteness perhaps can be regarded as infinite, in the way you have demonstrated. It is beyond relativity, it has no size, incapable of manifesting, etc.

If it is possible to understand as stated above, then it should be possible to comprehend ones own totally of expansion because one cannot define where consciousness is not.

David Quinn wrote:
It hinges on whether consciousness is necessarily discriminatory in nature. If it is, then cosmic consciousness is impossible.

Can there be consciousness without discrimination. - i.e. without distinguishable objects of consciousness? If there is, then it would be completely unlike consciousness as we know it. There would be no perception, no remembering, no ruminating, no forward-planning, no willing, no purposeful activity. For all intents and purposes, it would be equivalent to unconsciousness.

We could go all poetic and say that the Universe has a kind of cosmic consciousness in that, being the process of cause and effect, it is everywhere present and thus in touch with everything and thus "knows" everything. But this kind of knowing is completely unlike what we normally call "knowing".

The above question is easily answered when one realize the reality of their life is life itself. In realizing this, one must comprehend all which takes place in there life takes place because they live, move, and have their being in life. Life is equal everywhere, because life does not move, it is here present everywhere for everyone in exactness. What differentiate is the spirit of the movement of ones thoughts in accord to how they were reared and the environment. Life therefore is consciousness and consciousness cannot discriminate because

the appearence of the moment is all there is.

so what is there discriminatory about the isness of the moment?

loki wrote:

hmmm. Ok. Well, you're right, consciousness as we know it is inherently limited to certain principles. And if we are defining "infinite" as that which is beyond manifestation, then I suppose I am 100% confident that infinite consciousness is impossible.

There are no limitations to consciousness, there is only limitations to human comprehension of consciousness. If a principle of consciousness is applicable here, it is applicable so everywhere applicable.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa