Without an end limit, why stop?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Given that God and the universe are both infinite...

Would you like a toasted teacake?

 

[Haggis and tatties]

(Run in at the sound of free grub, reads first post and then leaves quietly knowing ignorance is bliss)

 

[RJDiogenes]

It has the attribute of being nothingness. But the metaphysics quickly gets messy, because to say that Nothingness does not exist, is like a double negative, which is to say that something does exists.

Not really. That's just a construct of language. It's not that nothingness does not exist, it's that nothingness is the word that we use to describe a lack of anything. No space, no time, no attributes of any kind-- it's a concept to describe something that isn't. You can write a sentence talking about a circle formed by two right angles, but it's not going to happen.

It's like when the number zero was invented, and people found it strange to consider counting the things you don't have any of. But zero has a solid foundation in mathematical logic. We can construct all other numbers from zero. To say that zero has no attributes because it does not exist would be wrong.

The number zero isn't nothingness. It's an empty set, a lack of a specific thing, even if you're dealing with pure numbers. If there were nothingness instead of reality, even zero wouldn't exist, because there'd be nothing to have a lack of.

But that only pushes inquiring minds up that larger space. Why does it exist, and why should there be a subset with special cases?

It's a big multidimensional Mandelbrot Set. But there doesn't have to be a "why," and I doubt that there is.

Causality is something intertwined with time, and time is a property of this four dimensional bubble we live in, whether it's a subset of something larger, or not.

With causality we tend to look at motion (over time), and consider how one arrangement of matter preceded another arrangement of matter, and how the former moved to become the latter.

By thinking in terms of causality we restrict our thinking to within that four dimensional bubble, and are unable to consider the bigger picture.

When I speak of causality, I speak of ultimate causality-- creation of reality, which is impossible. Naturally there are interactions and sequences of events.

Logic is immune to time, so is the natural tool for piercing through that four dimensional bubble. As with constructing the numbers from zero, thinking in terms of logical precedents would be more suitable than thinking in terms of causality, for explaining existence of something.

It's logic that leads to the conclusion that reality has always and always will exist, even if it's in some recursive form that we don't understand. Nothingness by definition cannot give rise to something.

I like how you equate infinite space with, like, infinite time or infinite knowledge. Ultimately, everything about the universe will be learned, because there is not an infinite amount of things going on. And then what?

There's a quiz.

 

[think]

The Quiz:

1. What is less then nothing and more then everything?

2. Why does anything matter beyond this?

3. What is this that it is not that?

4. When does the time of day get later then it is.

5. Who are these people in here?

6. If things change, will they change back?

7. How far is too far?

8. What kind of bubble gum does one need to create four dimensional bubbles?

9. If this were a pop quiz where does the bubble pop?

10. Did you do your homework or did someone else do it?

11. Can you turn your papers over now?


///give me like a few hours before I can dig into these concepts (RJ&Jadzia) I just woke up and can't think at all (obviously)///

 

[RJDiogenes]

My biggest conundrum: Where does the white go when snow melts?

 

[Australis]

The problem isn't space, it's energy and time.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It's all three for me. I need more space, but I don't have the time or energy to move.

 

[Australis]

Ah, but if you have time and energy, you'll find the space.

 

[RJDiogenes]

However, if you don't have the energy it doesn't matter.

 

[think]

I have written music to listen to while responding to these ideas... http://alonetone.com/acid/tracks/jumping-on-2

so since i'm boldish and can't figure a way to interject with out chop chop to the quote blocks all bold stuff will be me..

It has the attribute of being nothingness. But the metaphysics quickly gets messy, because to say that Nothingness does not exist, is like a double negative, which is to say that something does exists.

//
It is because something and nothing are concurrent in the experience of the illusions we perceive in our minds that 'it' is lost in the confusion of focus. We are left to wonder should we focus on what is there or not?
//
Not really. That's just a construct of language. It's not that nothingness does not exist, it's that nothingness is the word that we use to describe a lack of anything. No space, no time, no attributes of any kind-- it's a concept to describe something that isn't. You can write a sentence talking about a circle formed by two right angles, but it's not going to happen.

//
OH NO not geometry now there is the perfect circle ... a straight line.. in the special relativity definitions' of space, but time and special relativity are separate from one another. (more, later on this opinion) somehow there is no more or no less then there is somehow. and.., This sentence has a wrong word in it. LOL
//

It's like when the number zero was invented, and people found it strange to consider counting the things you don't have any of. But zero has a solid foundation in mathematical logic. We can construct all other numbers from zero. To say that zero has no attributes because it does not exist would be wrong.

//
heck lets invent three unique number zeros ok... real zero; imaginary zero and neither real nor imaginary zero. anyway, what size of measurement does one need to find a zero amount exactly, Right?
//

The number zero isn't nothingness. It's an empty set, a lack of a specific thing, even if you're dealing with pure numbers. If there were nothingness instead of reality, even zero wouldn't exist, because there'd be nothing to have a lack of.

It's a big multidimensional Mandelbrot Set. But there doesn't have to be a "why," and I doubt that there is.

When I speak of causality, I speak of ultimate causality-- creation of reality, which is impossible. Naturally there are interactions and sequences of events.

//
But to say set implies a group of "things" that exist in and of themselves. yet what is this set-less group and what is this groupless set of values that are neither real nor not-real? As for Mandelbrot sets we can go well beyond the Mandelbrot series of sets their concept is like a self-replicating recursion virus. (so sorry for over memifing these things)
//

Logic is immune to time, so is the natural tool for piercing through that four dimensional bubble. As with constructing the numbers from zero, thinking in terms of logical precedents would be more suitable than thinking in terms of causality, for explaining existence of something.

//
For time and logic are not immune as you say but create the coincidence of being at times. It is to change time in smaller and smaller amounts that requires a greater and greater precision such that the average interpolations would give into themselves in the end. whatever the end really is.
//

It's logic that leads to the conclusion that reality has always and always will exist, even if it's in some recursive form that we don't understand. Nothingness by definition cannot give rise to something.

//
in the circle of recursive information loops this (the previous conversation) is the sequence that is looped into itself and since there needs to be something other then nothing and nothing other then something then it is being of the thought that knows the thought that is no, and we knew that just as I new that again in the mystical limericks of times endless meanings.
//

we know no end and know no beginning but yet this middle part is a... question of what we knew as new and what we know as not...