Everything MUST be 1.

[Contemplative Cat]

Why?

Other than personal nondual experience, there is a way to figure this out.

A paradox s something that apparently exists, but logically shouldn't.

Under the assumption of pluralism,
there would be separate entities or objects.
at very least three things, two polarized objects and space between.

If this were actually true, then theoretically one object can meet and contact the other.
But here's were paradox comes in;
there are two units, one moves half the space toward,
Then another half space, then another.
Since theoretically there are infinite halves,
and thus infinite spaces between two objects, they can never meet.

But obviously that's not true, apparent objects can meet, so in reality there cant be two objects but different localities in one "object".
The body must be a part of space, and space must be a part of the body.
Because the space between two qualities of the Monad disappears as opposites attract and come together. If separation was a reality, then nothing would ever be able to touch.
Two waves of a quantum ocean can touch, merge and separate however, each wave takeing with them peices of each other.

 

[Tumah]

If this were actually true, then theoretically one object can meet and contact the other.
But here's were paradox comes in;
there are two units, one moves half the space toward,
Then another half space, then another.
Since theoretically there are infinite halves,
and thus infinite spaces between two objects, they can never meet.

I don't understand. In this example you are not taking all the factors into consideration. What about the the dimensions of the objects themselves? With that, we would recognize that at some point the dimension of the objects exceeds the half space between the objects and they would meet. What don't I understand?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

That is an interesting point.
Molecules would mix but the molecules would replace the space molecules.
Without merging into one there would still be a space. Which is contrary to experience.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

those two wave would become one wave.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There is one universe, conceptually it is comprised of two halves, these halves in turn are each comprised of two halves, and so on ad infinitum.

So in fact, one equates with infinity and thus there is not a second....any and all derivatives of the one and only, are merely fractions of one.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

those two wave would become one wave.

However, light can travel both as a particle and/or a wave, depending on the perspective and focus we take.

Schrodinger's Cat can be dead and alive simultaneously....

There aren't two 'halves that make a whole', there's just what 'isn't' compared to what is...

Then again, I reside in that 'space' between Monotheism and Absolute Monism.

 

[Dhyana]

However, light can travel both as a particle and/or a wave, depending on the perspective and focus we take.

Schrodinger's Cat can be dead and alive simultaneously....
.

I'm no physicist, but I believe it is more accurate to say: light is either a particle OR a wave, which is determined upon measurement/observation. Not simultaneously both. Same with Schrodinger's Cat. If there's no measurement/observation, we simply can say nothing. Back to wave functions and probability of being this or that, here or there. Observation determines the fact.

One coin has two faces, but only one can be seen at a time. When flipped, it's either heads or tails but that can't be determined until it lands. Even when it's spinning, and we know there are two sides which exist, only one can be observed in a single instance.

Subtle difference between "and " and "or ", but "or" is more accurate I think. Maybe a real physicist in this forum can chime in. That arrogant ******* physicist, Feynman, would be all over my liberal artsy , philosophical *** for my temerity even attempting to wade in here. Didn't Feynman have an IPA named after him?

 

[Prana Pastime]

Why?

Other than personal nondual experience, there is a way to figure this out.

A paradox s something that apparently exists, but logically shouldn't.

Under the assumption of pluralism,
there would be separate entities or objects.
at very least three things, two polarized objects and space between.

If this were actually true, then theoretically one object can meet and contact the other.
But here's were paradox comes in;
there are two units, one moves half the space toward,
Then another half space, then another.
Since theoretically there are infinite halves,
and thus infinite spaces between two objects, they can never meet.

But obviously that's not true, apparent objects can meet, so in reality there cant be two objects but different localities in one "object".
The body must be a part of space, and space must be a part of the body.
Because the space between two qualities of the Monad disappears as opposites attract and come together. If separation was a reality, then nothing would ever be able to touch.
Two waves of a quantum ocean can touch, merge and separate however, each wave takeing with them peices of each other.

There are at least ten highly prominent or enjoyed/employed versions of quantum theory. So many scientists adhere to the different versions. In reality there may be near one hundred varieties. I feel that the version of quantum theory that your description best fits is the version that states the entire universe has its own wave function. In that theory measurements done inside the universe would actually have no effect on anything in the universe. The reason being is that the only important state being regarded is the state of the whole universe. I say that because this is what it would mean that there are not separate objects as you previously described.

 

[Dhyana]

There are at least ten highly prominent or enjoyed/employed versions of quantum theory. So many scientists adhere to the different versions. In reality there may be near one hundred varieties. I feel that the version of quantum theory that your description best fits is the version that states the entire universe has its own wave function. In that theory measurements done inside the universe would actually have no effect on anything in the universe. The reason being is that the only important state being regarded is the state of the whole universe. I say that because this is what it would mean that there are not separate objects as you previously described.

That which is seems to appear as vicious circle or tautology. Minds and matter co-exist and are mutually interdependent: minds collapse wave functions so that matter appears as matter. Minds are dependent on a material brain in order to function. Neither preceded the other, they are a pair. Form and void, nirvana and samsara, time and space, temporal and eternal, seemingly contradictory or in opposition to one another are inseparable pairs. "Advaita" according to ancient Hindu scriptures, translated simply as "not two". Not exactly equivalent to Zero, One or even one plus one: just not two. That seems to me as the essence of all mysticism: the realization that the apparent (phenomenal or objective ) individual and the hidden (noumenal or subjective) God, Brahman, Source, Nirvana, Tao (whatever noun or concept you prefer), are and always will be Not Two. One is insufficient, Two is false, Zero is close, Not Two is the best of all insufficient concepts to express what is. Once expressed, thought or described, what is, becomes distorted and apparently (but not actually) separated from itself into subject-object. But in itself, it's always just itself, which is what everything is, including us. We are that.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That which is seems to appear as vicious circle or tautology. Minds and matter co-exist and are mutually interdependent: minds collapse wave functions so that matter appears as matter. Minds are dependent on a material brain in order to function. Neither preceded the other, they are a pair. Form and void, nirvana and samsara, time and space, temporal and eternal, seemingly contradictory or in opposition to one another are inseparable pairs. "Advaita" according to ancient Hindu scriptures, translated simply as "not two". Not exactly equivalent to Zero, One or even one plus one: just not two. That seems to me as the essence of all mysticism: the realization that the apparent (phenomenal or objective ) individual and the hidden (noumenal or subjective) God, Brahman, Source, Nirvana, Tao (whatever noun or concept you prefer), are and always will be Not Two. One is insufficient, Two is false, Zero is close, Not Two is the best of all insufficient concepts to express what is. Once expressed, thought or described, what is, becomes distorted and apparently (but not actually) separated from itself into subject-object. But in itself, it's always just itself, which is what everything is, including us. We are that.

I agree the universe is "not two". I call this "not two" phenomena interaction. That interaction symbolizes the inter-connectivity of the universe, where all of the seemingly many parts of existence interact as one inseparable unit. Everything in the universe is interactive and everything interacts in some way with everything else. When two seemingly different sides, aspects, or objects interact, they are not separate as two because that interaction between everything makes them one. Due to interaction (interactive forces), there is no true separation in the universe despite the appearance of many.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hello Cat,

Why?

Other than personal nondual experience, there is a way to figure this out.

A paradox s something that apparently exists, but logically shouldn't.

Under the assumption of pluralism,
there would be separate entities or objects.
at very least three things, two polarized objects and space between.

If this were actually true, then theoretically one object can meet and contact the other.
But here's were paradox comes in;
there are two units, one moves half the space toward,
Then another half space, then another.
Since theoretically there are infinite halves,
and thus infinite spaces between two objects, they can never meet.

But obviously that's not true, apparent objects can meet, so in reality there cant be two objects but different localities in one "object".
The body must be a part of space, and space must be a part of the body.
Because the space between two qualities of the Monad disappears as opposites attract and come together. If separation was a reality, then nothing would ever be able to touch.
Two waves of a quantum ocean can touch, merge and separate however, each wave takeing with them peices of each other.

Are you sure about that?

Do material objects really touch each other or do the molecules repel? Do we ever actually touch anything?

Of course, we have the experience of 'touch' and we can have the experience of 'oneness'. This may tell us a great deal about the subjective experience of human consciousness, but this doesn't tell us that everything must necessarily be 'one'.

I'm probably missing something...

 

[Joshua Pryce]

But obviously that's not true, apparent objects can meet, so in reality there cant be two objects but different localities in one "object".
The body must be a part of space, and space must be a part of the body.
Because the space between two qualities of the Monad disappears as opposites attract and come together. If separation was a reality, then nothing would ever be able to touch.
Two waves of a quantum ocean can touch, merge and separate however, each wave takeing with them peices of each other.

I see problems with this view. There are the 5 senses. Touch, taste, hear, see and smell. Every living thing has these senses but reality doesnt not. A mountain cannot hear or see or smell, etc. What about the ocean. Neither the ocean. This shows that lifeless object are lifeless but living beings are living. This shows that not everything is linked together. Oneness is unity. But there must be some sort of unity for this to a productive and logical theory. Its not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I see problems with this view. There are the 5 senses. Touch, taste, hear, see and smell. Every living thing has these senses but reality doesnt not. A mountain cannot hear or see or smell, etc. What about the ocean. Neither the ocean. This shows that lifeless object are lifeless but living beings are living. This shows that not everything is linked together. Oneness is unity. But there must be some sort of unity for this to a productive and logical theory. Its not.

The universe is alive and aware, to compare human consciousness with universal nature is like comparing the awareness of an electron in an atom in a molecule in a cell in a tissue in an organ in your body, to your awake state human mind awareness.

To help show you that the universal nature has awareness, consider watching the TV early morning news and the minds consciousness while doing it. Now consider going outside early one morning and instead of watching TV, you see a beautiful sunrise and feel the sense of awe that fills the mind. Note thar in the first case, the mind is busy listening to the TV talking heads and thinking about the conversation, while in the latter, the mind is still and free from thought when you first see and feel the awesome sunrise. Once you begin to think about the sunrise, the state of being in awe is lost, to be replaced the memory of it. So it is in meditation, if and when you can still your mind, even with your eyes closed, there will be a state of awe, a state of samadhi, while when you revert to normal consciousness, the mind is thinking about whatever and no awe is present.

When the mind is free from its own self-generated thought, it is one with the divine mind of the cosmos. You will never find God through the thinking mind, you can only feel the oneness of God when the ego mind is still. Know ye not that ye are a temple of the living god. To imagine the temple can ever realize God is to be lost, one must unite with the God within the temple. Similarly it is said that the what the human mind can never conceive of, That is what awaits those who love God..

 

[Balthazzar]

Like when people meet and are influenced by each other, leaving a piece of themselves with the other? If Everything (God) is space and we the occupants of that space, then ... Hmm .... Umm ... O'k, so is everything 1 or 0?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Like when people meet and are influenced by each other, leaving a piece of themselves with the other? If Everything (God) is space and we the occupants of that space, then ... Hmm .... Umm ... O'k, so is everything 1 or 0?

God is a name given to THAT reality from which good and evil, light and dark, yang and ying, logical 1 and 0, etc., emerge from. You can call it what you want, Nirvana, Brahman, Tao, Oneness, etc., but the name is just a label. God is forever unconceivable to the human brain mind because the brain works on duality, as does the universal creation, but the Creator is the oneness from which duality emerges. If one wanted to imagine the oneness as a nothing from which duality emerged, it is ok ,but it is not actually nothing, it is everything.

So when one says that God is one, whilst the name 'one' is the same, when considering context, the personal 'one' refers to one of many other ones, whereas the one God refers to the absolute, all that exists are differentiated aspect of the one. The real is forever on the other side of names/concepts, and there will true understanding be realized, not in belief.

 

[Balthazzar]

God is a name given to THAT reality from which good and evil, light and dark, yang and ying, logical 1 and 0, etc., emerge from. You can call it what you want, Nirvana, Brahman, Tao, Oneness, etc., but the name is just a label. God is forever unconceivable to the human brain mind because the brain works on duality, as does the universal creation, but the Creator is the oneness from which duality emerges. If one wanted to imagine the oneness as a nothing from which duality emerged, it is ok ,but it is not actually nothing, it is everything.

So when one says that God is one, whilst the name 'one' is the same, when considering context, the personal 'one' refers to one of many other ones, whereas the one God refers to the absolute, all that exists are differentiated aspect of the one. The real is forever on the other side of names/concepts, and there will true understanding be realized, not in belief.

The wholeness of 0, as you suggested, isn't nothingness but rather all or everything. Well stated.

 

[wellwisher]

Our universe is mostly mass, with mass that not exactly based on a binary. We can make anti-mass in the lab, but our universe did to end up with this binary. Our universe is dominated by mass; much more mass than anti-mass. This unity of mass defines the unidirectional inertia of the universe; where all the laws of the universe are heading. If mass and anti-mass were equal the universe would be stuck.

Another interesting example of a unity, that is assumed to be a binary, is the magnetic field. A magnetic field appears to be separated into opposites poles; north and south. Yet science has never seen an isolated monopole; north or south, that is as enduring, as the magnet. The two poles only exist as a spinoff from the one; magnetic field. Only the one is self standing. The two are more of an intellectual illusion, that dates back to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which assumes a binary universe of opposites.

Male and female differ by an entire chromosome. On paper, looking at just these two chromosomes, they're not opposites; mirror images. Most of the human DNA is the same; unity. The brain creates that illusion based on long standing cultural expectations. It turns out male and female can do all the same things, except for one. Why model based on the exception, instead of the rule?

This binary illusion of the brain, has over assumed the binary nature of nature. This has led to the oppression of women; the oppressor and the oppressed are opposites. Yet male and female have more in common; unity, than what is opposite; binary. The ancients saw this and attributed this illusion factor to the Binarius; Satan.

Another good example in science is the electron. Particle colliders, at the highest energy, have not been able to split the electron. The electron is considered an elementary particle.

The electron has mass and negative charge. It is still assumed to be binary, even though it is a single elementary particle. This is due to the binary tradition. If we have thing, made of two things; like the poles of the magnetic, that cannot be divided into two self standing things, it is really a unity.

The positron, which has mass and positive charge, is also an elementary particle. These are not as common as the electron, and tend to merge with even higher mass via the proton, which is not an elementary particle.

Mass and negative charge which are one interchangeable thing within the electron, are more than likely based on an aspect of the unified force; mass/charge can merge as one interchangeable thing. Science cannot get past its illusion of the binary, to see this unity. This unity is how you can solve the unified field theory, within our matter dominant universe. Mass and negative charge are one phase, via the electron. The Satan subroutine makes it hard to see, with Atheists having no-good way to clear their heads and re-calibrate.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The wholeness of 0, as you suggested, isn't nothingness but rather all or everything. Well stated.

Without a consciousness to dissect the wholeness of everything, you end up with no-thing. If there is no consciousness with discriminating senses to model reality, you have nothing; there's no macro or micro, no measurement. Nothing, which is to say everything without division.

 

[Balthazzar]

Without a consciousness to dissect the wholeness of everything, you end up with no-thing. If there is no consciousness with discriminating senses to model reality, you have nothing; there's no macro or micro, no measurement. Nothing, which is to say everything without division.

The give and receive aspects of being alive. Mental universe reference?

 

[Balthazzar]

Without a consciousness to dissect the wholeness of everything, you end up with no-thing. If there is no consciousness with discriminating senses to model reality, you have nothing; there's no macro or micro, no measurement. Nothing, which is to say everything without division.

Hard drive storage and components that enable us to "experience" life (Consciousness)? We are living souls, so what happens to our stored experiences after we lose consciousness? Do we get new components and a fresh clean hard drive for a new machine or just new components with hard drive intact? Biologically speaking - That's how I view us as souls. The hard drives of human experiences.