>
> Chris,
>
1. It sure is hard to visualize the "absolute lack-of-all", I agree.
What I try to do is to shut my eyes and try to imagine the universe and
all its volume collapsing down to just my body and then just my mindscape.
Then, I push that darkness of the mindscape off to the side into a little
point and try to imagine getting rid of that point. I've never pushed it
all the way away out of fear that it may not be so good for your health, but
it helps me think that only once it's all gone, including our mind, do we
jump to the outside and see the "absolute lack-of-all" as the entirety of
all there is and thus an existent entity. But, it's possible it's just my
imagination
> Nice meditative visualization. The last bit you mention about the sudden
> quantum jump – at the very instant when everything including the last
> vestige of self is gone and the state of all-nothing is first reached – in
> that sub-femtosecond or less instant – the observer perspective quite
> suddenly (in some quantum salsa) on the outside looking in… gaining this
> crucial outside perspective on the all-ness of nothing.
>
> I used to do visualization the other way… how vast can we imagine our
> minds? Perhaps, one could say, both roads lead to the same place. When I
> have tried this exercise I would expand my inner sense of the volume of
> space my mind extended to and enveloped from the room I would be meditating
> in… to the neighborhood above the trees… to the perspective of the clouds
> and the much vaster territory seen from that POV… and more… zooming out,
> holding the focus. Each time, at some point it I would lose it, on occasion
> from the vertigo in the mind; on others due to mundane interruptions – like
> some sound from my immediate environment that kicked the more primitive
> survival pathways of the brain, up into override mode. Have not done that
> in some time, but it was an interesting exercise of holding a focus on this
> particular mental perspective.
>
> I kind of suspect there may some ultimate symmetry in the limit of both
> the very big and the very small.
>
> Roger: I really like your idea of imagining your mind growing to infinite
size, but I agree it sounds pretty hard. I'm going to give it a try. Your
head doesn't blow up, does it? :-) As you said, maybe people visualizing
the infinitely small and infinitely big will eventually meet.
------------------------------------------
> 2. When I was talking about removing all things thought to exist in
> order to get to the "absolute lack-of-all", I don't think there's still a
> container left. Instead, I think that that that "absolute lack-of-all"
> itself is the container. That nothingness would be the entirety of all
> there is and thus the grouping, or container, defining what is contained
> within. That nothingness is both what is contained within and the
> container.
>
> Nice Daoist ring to this: “nothingness is both what is contained within
> and the container” okay, I see your POV. Then the container of this
> all-nothing, is a dual aspect or POV, of nothing.
>
Roger: Yep, I think the entiretyness of the all-nothing means that it's a
grouping, or surface, defining what is contained within. So, it is
kind of a dual aspect of it.
---------------------------------------
> 4. In regard to the auto-catalytic nature of the existent entity/empty
> set, I totally agree. But, my vote for what the multiplication operation
> would be is that:
>
> o If the "absolute lack-of-all" is a grouping defining what is contained
> within and thus an existent entity, a grouping is the similar to a surface
> or edge defining what is contained within and giving substance and
> existence to the thing.
>
> Do you then view – e.g. maintain a perspective on – nothing as being a
> zero dimensional bubble with nothing inside (or outside for that matter),
> but one which is imbued nevertheless with this duality of having an edge or
> surface?
>
> One could make the point that this boils down to a duality of perspective:
> the within perspectives; and the containment of all (of nothing)
> perspective. The surface/edge is the global containing one (the bird’s eye
> view); whilst every other infinitely possible perspectives are within.
>
> Perspective of course implies an observer. Which poses some interesting
> problems for something out of nothing.
>
Roger: Yep, I do think of the all-nothing as being a bubble with nothing
inside and nothing outside but with the property of being a surface because
of the fact that it's the entirety, or all, of all that is present. But,
I don't think of it as zero dimensional. I can't envision anything that
actually physically exists as having any of its dimensions actually be
zero. If so, it seems like it wouldn't be there. So, I think of it as a
physical entity of a finite, non-zero, size of 1 where 1 is the smallest
possible size.
The only perspective present is that of you and me and others, and
that's only after the fact. We're thinking about and looking at (in our
mindframe) this situation, and it seems like there has to be an observer
present, but in the situation itself, there are no observers. Just this
initial fundamental existent entity. So, our talking about a perspective
and an observer is putting something onto the situation after the fact,
when in the situation itself, there was no observer. This kind of gets to
the idea that the conception of something in the mind of a thinker/observer
is different than the thing itself.
-----------------------------------------------
> o If you have this initial surface, what's next to the surface? The
> "absolute lack-of-all". This new instance of the "absolute lack-of-all" is
> itself an existent entity next to the surface of the original entity. In
> fact, I think new identical "absolute lack-of-all" existent entities would
> cover the entire surface of the original entity.
>
> One view of all of the duplicated nothing is that it is all illusion –
> self-reflection gone infinite – that reduces down instantaneously to
> nothing AND all…. Form the ALL perspective. It is the Grand Illusion.
> Conjured out of nothing, but it is beautiful, terrifying too J -- so
> immediately-self-apparent as alive within us, driving our being to ask the
> question.
>
The question we ask about nothing.
>
Roger: I sure agree about it's seeming like an illusion sometimes.
Sometimes, I think that if we could pull the curtain back a little on
reality, we'd see that it's the "absolute lack-of-all". But, it's also an
existent entity. So, as you say, it's all kind of an illusion, but two
illusions relative to one another would look just as real to each other as
two "normal" physical particles".
You've got a very good way of writing about this stuff. Your way of saying
things is much more interesting than my way, IMHO.
---------------------------------
o Each of the new "absolute lack-of-all" existent entities would repeat the
> process and you'd have an expanding space composed of these "absolute
> lack-of-all" existent entities.
>
> You seem to be hypothesizing a form of eternal inflation, of nothing,
> rubber-stamping out more {} ad infinitum. I like it.
>
> This would be my vote on the autocatalytic mechanism for how this
> initial entity/empty set could replicate itself.
>
> It does seem to lead naturally to the kind of runaway process, which, I
> believe is what is required, in order for existence to become manifest.
>
> Roger: Yep, I guess it's like a totally automated factory making ever more
> of the {}. At least, that's my view.
>
Roger: Hardly anyone ever seems to agree with any of my views, so even if
you're just humoring me, I appreciate all your insights! Thanks. You seem
to be one of the very few who can see things in a similar way to me. I'm
so sorry for you! :-)
Roger
>
>
>
>
--
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.
