-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 12:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: S=0
> On 5 Jan 2015, at 6:13 pm, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > For me the crux has always also been how does anything at all emerge from an > all-encompassing universal nothingness. Well, you've read Larry Krauss on this by now for the Aristotelian theologic good oil. Larry may be right. No I haven't and just took a look and see that I should... so many books to read :) {within the compression of time afforded me by my professional obligation} So thanks for illuminating me to my ignorance of this book. >>I would also try Bruno's Platonic frame - which merely states the universe >>is how numbers appear to themselves. I like this frame as well. It leads to the question: How do numbers appear? >>The Truth is: Nothing emerges from Anything. Everything just is, was and >>always will be, just like in arithmetic. Truth depends on perspective though. Perspective itself is a prime mover. All other things require perspective. Also we need to be clear that we are not dealing with time in the normal macro sense we commonly experience it in as an emergent causal stack frame in some hyper space. Before emergent reality there can be no time itself; there is nothing! Pure undivided static nothing. Time only has meaning from within the perspective of emergent reality. It is very real for us and for our experience, but then we swim within so many layers of emergent reality and it is nearly impossible for us to extricate ourselves from being contained within the temporal perspective (or I would say emergent causally-ordered-stack-frame of reference) So to speak in terms of before or after is simply non-applicable because this ordering of things (or if you stay with me for a second...) this emergent frame of reference enabling causally ordered stacked movies of experience, to be conjured out from static timeless empty void, through being dynamical threads of execution (and self-aware execution)... experiencing -- from their perspective -- the sense of the one way arrow of time.... and threading through the dream of nothing experiencing itself too produce an infinite (eternal inflation baby) reality of infinite threads... all a dream dreaming itself. >>Arithmetic Realism. Grok it. I have Two plus two always did equal four and everything else can be doubted in some way. If everything else can be doubted in some way can you explain your doubt that: "0={0}" >>Trouble is, it doesn't immediately seem like a scientific conclusion to say >>"you are a very complex number and you are dreaming yourself" but there might >>be a less Stanley Kubrick way of putting it but for the moment it escapes me No.. it sure doesn't and just the very mention of it raises the violent ire of hard core Aristotelean materialists. I really like how Bruno said this -- or along this line of thought on another thread " Then all the rest, God included, is part of a persistent number hallucination, but "hallucination" should not be used as "unreal", because the hallucination is real, and is what makes our lives, and there is no reason to dismiss them at all. " I liked how he put that. -Chris Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
