I decided to revisit a reply to Sue from the 3 May, that I started but didn't bother finishing. I just use these opportunities to brainstorm and rant about my TOE.
Well, I was trying to work out how, with your idea of all things having â€œactual differentiationâ€, one thing could be confused with another thing. You see, if a thing has a clear and definite boundary,(a beginning and an end), I'd say that thing therefore inherently exists (exists independently from all other things).
It cannot have definitive boundary because the nature of defining that which exists is in the eye of the beholder. Also it always changing and in motion so an absolute boundary is not possible. Nothing would change if boundaries were absolute. That there is not an absolute boundary, except at the void level, only means that the boundary is not absolute, not that there is NO boundary.
No thing inherently exists, effects-wise - except that at the time of observation, that which makes up its form, that which is the cause of its ability to be observed, does indeed inherently exist. This content cannot be other than what it is at that time, so therefore it is inherent. No thing can exist independently from everything else, for that matter nor can infinite things, namely the fundamental forces - they also are dependent on each other for their existence.
In terms of beginnings and endings, yes things do have this clear and definite boundary, but lol it is the sort of boundary that, for the full process to occur, could take the entire life of a bubble universe. IMO, if things arise from the void, then they must at some stage return to the void. Note however that all this means to me is that the two fundamental forces, that are the content of all things, returns to a more pure state - a state where each of the two forces become less relatively intertwined. Now while I can say "a thing" can dissolve to some level of dualistic purity, this same process can never apply to entirety of The Totality.
To picture what I'm saying think of a black hole as a location where the contracting force is near pure, all the matter rushing in to be devoured by the black hole is balanced portions of expansion/contraction, and the so called empty space around all this is the expansionary force in a near pure state.
Eventually all the matter rushing into the black hole will be torn apart by the stronger contracting force ratio, and the matter will disappear. This process is emitting energy, which is matter where the expansionary force is dominant, and the contracting force or gravity will be sucked into the black hole in a very pure state.
Things, as what they really are, namely as semi-defined patterns of existence, do have beginnings and endings, but such beginnings and endings never exist independently from other things. Nonetheless, they do exist independently from all other things BY THE DEGREE that their particular pattern of existence, is bounded by the existence of other patterns of existence that are more directly in their vicinity, or sphere of potential causal effect, than less direct patterns. For example, the obvious differences between the nature of the sun and the earth will remain that way until changes in patterns of existence means the sun expands and becomes a closer, stronger pattern of direct influence so much so that it totally consumes the earths patterns.
But your above answer doesnâ€™t take that fact into account. Above you have the â€œbrainâ€ affecting the existence of the thing (snake or branch). Which just doesnâ€™t add up?
Well that is not at all what I said in that para. See below. I just meant the brain will determine the appearance based on how its own nature interprets the patterns of differentiation it becomes aware of.
In terms of reality, as nothing is the same as it was one moment ago everything we view is actually always a new thing, although it may appear to be the same. When walking through the bush we may mistake a snake for a fallen branch. This would have occurred because the brain is geared to think "close enough is good enough" when in a rapidly changing environment - it simply does not have time to identify everything in great detail.
Mind you, the sensory tools our bodies have, rather than the brain, do or can "affect the existence of the thing". To observe any physical thing our bodily causal patterns/flows must interact with the causal patterns/flows emanating from the observed thing. It is just our effect is so small as to be almost of no effect. For example - We hear a soundwave, but in doing so our ears change the sound wave to another pattern, so if we werenâ€™t there observing this sound, then the pattern would be something else - therefore we are affecting the thing to a minuscule degree. I know this is petty but folks round here like to talk about absolutes.
I know later on in your post you loosen your interpretation by suggesting that boundaries are â€œfuzzyâ€ â€“ but that still doesnâ€™t make your concept of existence any clearer.
Either things have hard and fast boundaries (and cannot interact); or they don't have boundaries (and can interact).
Well as we all know, things are all interconnected in a continuum, so therefore some people say the existence of things is a delusion, and it is from that singular perspective. However that does not make such a perspective absolutely correct because we as observers can clearly see that the universe is not the same from one location to another, therefore it is as equally valid AND invalid to say that things do not exist.
Why do boundaries have to be of an absolute nature that you state above, namely if there is a boundary then things cannot interact and if there are no boundaries then things can?
For example, lets say you have perfectly made and perfectly working 50 metre waterproof watch - so there is a boundary where water can not get into the watch when you dive up to around this level (as I said boundaries are fuzzy). Is this an absolute boundary? Yes and no. The watch is perfectly made and maintained so the boundary up to 50 metres is absolute â€“without some external influence other than just water pressure it will always be waterproof. OK, then dive to 750 metres â€“ what happens to this boundary? The absolute boundary is likely to disappear and the watch will no longer be waterproof in such circumstances.
I hope you get what I mean - it is not that there is any ABSOLUTE boundary between one thing or another, but nor is there NO boundary between one thing and another.
In things boundaries are related to the relativity (differences) between patterns of fundamental forces.
In your efforts to make your mental concepts to be only the truth and nothing but the truth, you are taking mental shortcuts by making the relationship between one thing and another into a â€œOne OR The Otherâ€ concept, rather than what reality always is which is â€œOne AND/OR the other, depending upon the perspective takenâ€.
Boundaries are only absolute in the "void", where the two forces I speak about are not in a state where they are acting directly upon each other. If they are acting upon each other then they immediately become things, whether we can observe them or not
Which still doesn't make it sound any more logical, as now youâ€™ve got things having boundaries â€“ â€œactualâ€ and â€œfuzzyâ€, but not â€œabsoluteâ€. That is, except in the â€œvoidâ€. But by defining the void as being comprised of â€œabsoluteâ€ boundaries, your idea becomes even wilder, because now you appear to have thrown the definition of â€œvoidâ€ out the window.
It just all sounds too topsy-turvy to define things as coming into existence when â€œabsoluteâ€ boundaries inhabiting the void, crash into one another, have a relationship, (and then, I take it, move on to another relationship).
Fair enough. What I say is confusing and very abstract - but that does not make it illogical. I don't have the memory to tackle this scientifically, and I'm not satisfied with the mantras of the QRS, that are true on from one perspective and not true on another. I'm utterly convinced that as dualism applies to all things it must also apply to that which causes everything.
I have been defining the two forces in the void as having absolute boundaries. Perhaps I am mistaken. My theory has always had the problem that some form of separation is required of one or both forces in order for things to form. I guess I've been avoiding that because I donâ€™t know the answer. The problem is that if any fundamental thing was separable even as a force, then it cannot really be absolute, howeverâ€¦ we can see such separation of force in things (as in measuring explosions or gravity for example), and we humans can even store it as power, so this separation must somehow exist at the fundamental level.
One must remember I am talking about forces that no-one will ever directly see, as when in their pure state do they exist in time or space, but in a non-spatial, instantaneous form. While folks may balk at the existence of such a non-spatial realm, I donâ€™t. It is clear to me that space is caused and is therefore not the most fundamental type of existence possible. If there is space then that which precedes space must be opposite in nature - it must be non-dimensional.*
The problem lies with my inability to conceptualise other than linearly - to have a non-linear consciousness (though for that matter I canâ€™t see any being ever evolving that could have a non-linear consciousness). The void is absolutely non-linear, but as a result creates linearity in things. Alas though we are stuck with thoughts that are linear based and language that is spatially based, so I can offer no satisfying explanation, but the following are some thoughts on the matter.
In linear terms within the non-spatial void, the expansionary "surrounds" a nucleus of contracting force. The expansionary force is always "larger" than the contracting force, as its sole property is to enlarge itself. This being the case then it would envelope completely the contracting force. We see the same outcome in physical things, planets and atoms are completely surrounded by vast areas of empty space. As the contracting force is in the "centre" only some of the expansionary force expands into the "area" where the contracting force "just was" - and where this occurs this becomes a physical Universe, a part of the finite world.
Now if the totality was linear this would only occur once, but it isnâ€™t - it is non-linear. It is this very non-spatial, non-linearality that creates the fundamental separation that is required. Somehow the expansionary force causes the contracting force to continuously separate, and wherever such separation occurs, then a universe is created. With each separation the expansionary force surrounds the newly separated contracting force unit.
This means in the context of an infinite totality, each quark or string element could be the start of a new potential new universe (though it may not end up as an universe because of it being relative to pre-existing things that could bound its growth. For example it may push the once separated contracting force units to congregate into a black hole).
In reality the expansionary force might react with the contracting force like sand flowing through an hourglass, where the causal effect on the expansionary force is to slow it down in a funnel like effect - it must just bind the full power of the expansionary force. If the hourglass is non-linear, as in this slowing down process occurs in all directions then there will always be causal differentiation between the centre of the non-linear hourglass and the outside, the expansionary force flows into the centre of the sperical hourglass but has no where to go, so it builds up pressure until it explodes outward causing the hourglass of the contracting force to fracture. We see a similar action when dying stars explode, and as a star is made of atoms, when atoms explode.
*If there is space then that which precedes space must be opposite in nature - it must be non-dimensional
This is an interesting thing about opposing physical causes - they cause a different outcome with each level of causal impact. When there is physical opposition, the outcome is always in one sense the opposite and in another the same, as that which preceded it. At the "thing" level, two things in opposition merge into a new thing (for example oxidisation). Note however that as things are generally complex, as in consisting of many related layers of form, that the outcome of a causal interaction does not necessarily create an opposite appearance. Causal actions are non-stop and over short periods the vast bulk of these result in no discernable change - rest assured though that the changes, where two forms are merging into a new form, are occurring everywhere.
At the generic thing level, although things change, nothing fundamental can be lost or gained by the action of causes. Same (contracting force), Same (expansionary force) but Different (effect).
The effect can range from hardly different to completely different. For instance appearance-wise it may just make something green slightly more bluish, but when one applies this to "things arising from the void" to the very fundamental, then the initial outcome is completely opposite to the void. This is why, as seen from the linear perspective (which is not reality), Space is the first outcome in the creation of thingness, and this space is directly opposite in its nature to the non-spatial domain of the truly infinite. After space arises forms of matter including energy, which are opposite to the illusionary nothingness of space. All individual things are just a combination of space and matter at different levels of relativity. Things are continuously arising in this manner, and if we were technically able to dissect each layer of thingness we'd eventually get to Space. They are continually arising because the fundamental forces never stop being forces that expand or contract. There is never any non-causal action even in the void. They don't just create Space and stop being causes, they Add causes to Space to create from, then Add Causes to Space and Form to create Things.