A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

But that is NOT the case for us. No wave of consciousness goes past us when someone flips their tail. Instead, when our brains fail, so does our consciousness. And my consciousness is not the same as your consciousness. We are distinct consciousnesses within different skulls.

What you call 'distinct consciousnesses' (is that even a word?) is none other than the self-concept of 'I'. But using your twisted logic, this 'I' would be nothing more than a set of complex chemical reactions. IOW, there is no such 'I'; there is only chemical reactions fooling itself into thinking it is a self. But if you agree with me that this self called 'I' is but an illusion, then the only logical remaining choice is not-I, and not-I is none other than something universal in nature. IOW, 'universal consciousness'. As for 'distinct', all snowflakes are distinct, but all are made of universal water.

I don't see this as a 'sterile' view of things at all. Nor is it sad. It is simply the way it is. And we still get to experience this wonderful universe around us. We still get to interact with other consciousnesses through various means (including forums like this one). We get to make of it what we will.

And that is the problem. 'making of it what we will' is not what it is in reality. We need to get ourselves out of the way so we can see things as they actually are, without the interfering 'I'.

We are not experiencing this wonderful universe; we are experiencing an idea of it, and because we live an imitation of life, the world is in the sorry state it currently finds itself in. Science want to make an object of the universe, and we believe this model and try to impose it upon reality, with dire consequences. Because we see the world as a dead, unconscious 'thing', our tendency is to bulldoze it around and push it into shape according to our will.

We also don't interact with other consciousnesses; we interact with other minds., each seeing its own sculpted version of reality. Only pure (ie 'clear') consciousness sees the same reality. Why should it be any different?

 

[Polymath257]

Two schools of thought:

"Despite Einstein's misgivings about entanglement and nonlocality and the practical difficulties of obtaining proof one way or the other, Irish physicist John Bell attempted to force the issue by making it experimental rather than just theoretical. Bell’s Theorem, published in 1964, and referred to by some as one of the most profound discoveries in all of physics, effectively showed that the results predicted by quantum mechanics (for example, in an experiment like that described by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) could not be explained by any theory which preserved locality. The subsequent practical experiments by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman in 1972 seem (despite Clauser's initial espousal of Einstein's position) to definitively show that the effects of nonlocality are real, and that "spooky actions at a distance" are indeed possible.."

Nonlocality and Entanglement - Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle - The Physics of the Universe

Yes, Einstein was *wrong*. He expected an EPR type experiment to come out in a different way than they actually do. Bell's inequalities and their violation show that no local, realist hidden variable theory can match the predictions of QM and what we actually see in the real world. Remember that non-locality is *defined* in your quote as violation of Bell's inequalities.

Now, QM is a local, non-realist theory. it's predictions have been verified in every single experiment ever performed. ALL interactions in QM are local, but the particles do NOT have definite properties: they have probabilities of having different values for each property. It is the probabilities that propagate in QM. This means that when an entangled pair is formed, the correlation propagates (at less than the speed of light). But measurements, even far apart, will show the correlations. And these will violate Bell's inequalities.

 

[godnotgod]

Have been really busy on my job, and haven't had time to post here, but I will be back soon. Thanks, all.

 

[gnostic]

I know I must have mentioned the fact to you previously that transcendent states are not testable via the methods of Logic, Reason, or Analysis, so the clue here is to lay such methodologies aside and pay attention to one's inner experience directly, and without thought.

But everything you write is your version of "logic", "reason" and "analysis"...but all of which are based on your belief and bias.

Saying that there are "state" or your experience that transcends logic, reason and analysis, without any way to verify your claims, then is nothing more than your fantasy.

How do you know your inner experience isn't an illusion, or worse, a delusion?

You have been telling us that any empirical evidence or data isn't reality, but you expect us to take your words for it that you "inner experience" trump EVERYTHING...in another word, based on your say-so.

How is that logical?

Just because it is untestable via your methodology does not mean it does not exist, which is a silly and even backwards kind of logic. A real scientist always keeps an open mind, at least in theory.

No, gng, that's not the mark of a real scientist.

A real scientist should indeed have an open mind, BUT... (...and I must stress this "but") ...but, a real scientist should also keep in mind that any idea, insight or potential knowledge or discovery, has to be weighed by the evidences.

Meaning none of these idea, insight or knowledge should EVER be considered true, BY DEFAULT, until he has rigorously and repeatedly test them.

Even if the papers (his hypothesis or theory) are his own work, he must not assume they are true, simply because it is "his"...I say this because a real scientist has to consider that his work might be wrong. That's the reason for all the tests must be performed or evidences must be acquired.

Yes, a scientist has to have "open mind", like he must be open to the possibility and probability that he could be wrong. Or he has to open to the possibility that there might be better alternatives might be out there, backed by more conclusive evidences or test results.

What you are doing, godnotgod...it isn't science at all. You want people to accept what you believe in, without evidences or accept questionable sources.

 

[`mud]

Now that was gnostic !

 

[godnotgod]

But everything you write is your version of "logic", "reason" and "analysis"...but all of which are based on your belief and bias.

Saying that there are "state" or your experience that transcends logic, reason and analysis, without any way to verify your claims, then is nothing more than your fantasy.

How do you know your inner experience isn't an illusion, or worse, a delusion?

You have been telling us that any empirical evidence or data isn't reality, but you expect us to take your words for it that you "inner experience" trump EVERYTHING...in another word, based on your say-so.

How is that logical?

The experience I have been pointing to is without, and transcendent of, the thinking mind, and it is the thinking mind which utilizes the tools of Logic, Reason, and Analysis, and which creates belief and bias. I don't entertain any particular preference for the experience; it's just the way things are, like breathing naturally. It's just about being awake in the present moment, and seeing things as they are, from moment to moment, rather than the mind formulating concepts about how things are, which is what science does.

No, gng, that's not the mark of a real scientist.

A real scientist should indeed have an open mind, BUT... (...and I must stress this "but") ...but, a real scientist should also keep in mind that any idea, insight or potential knowledge or discovery, has to be weighed by the evidences.

Meaning none of these idea, insight or knowledge should EVER be considered true, BY DEFAULT, until he has rigorously and repeatedly test them.

But, gnostic, don't you see, that you assume that science is the gold standard for knowledge, and by which all other views should be judged. A real scientist would say something like:

"Yes, it is possible that there exists a higher state of conscious awareness, one that is unconditioned, outside the reach of the rational mind, and for which no evidence as science knows it exists, and is reality; and that science is only a partial view of that ultimate reality. I don't know, but am willing to put my science aside and go see for myself"

Even if the papers (his hypothesis or theory) are his own work, he must not assume they are true, simply because it is "his"...I say this because a real scientist has to consider that his work might be wrong. That's the reason for all the tests must be performed or evidences must be acquired.

Yes, a scientist has to have "open mind", like he must be open to the possibility and probability that he could be wrong. Or he has to open to the possibility that there might be better alternatives might be out there, backed by more conclusive evidences or test results.

What you are doing, godnotgod...it isn't science at all. You want people to accept what you believe in, without evidences or accept questionable sources.

I never claimed that 'what I am doing' is science; it isn't; it is a view beyond the grasp of science. While the method of science is dissection and reduction, the method of the mystic is to apprehend reality just as it presents itself, wholly and without any attempt to intellectualize it. The mystical view is neither science nor philosophy. It is direct experience of the reality we find ourselves immersed in right here; right now, from one eternal moment to the next, but without attachment. While your scientist is preoccupied with what is right or wrong, reality itself is neither. The scientist always ends up immersed in paradox because factual knowledge does not synch with nature. Nature is always bigger than Reason, because, unlike Reason, which attempts to encapsulate Reality into concepts that the rational mind can 'understand', (because concepts are themselves the product of the rational mind), the mystical view just sees things as they are, without the filter of the mind. IOW, there is no longer a subject/object split as in science; subject and object have merged into a single Reality. As Deepak Chopra put it:

"The spiritual experience is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality"

The very first step one takes in order to 'understand' reality is one step removed from reality, simply because you ARE that very Reality itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Now that was gnostic !

Too bad he doesn't quite understand the flaws in his logic. Ah, 'fawlty towers', you know.

 

[gnostic]

But, gnostic, don't you see, that you assume that science is the gold standard for knowledge, and by which all other views should be judged. A real scientist would say something like:

"Yes, it is possible that there exists a higher state of conscious awareness, one that is unconditioned, outside the reach of the rational mind, and for which no evidence as science knows it exists, and is reality; and that science is only a partial view of that ultimate reality. I don't know, but am willing to put my science aside and go see for myself"

No, gng.

You are forgetting that the science - as in scientific theohry, and even scientific hypothesis - required to be FALSIFIABLE.

Do you understand the concept of falsification in science. It is the ability TO REFUTE any statement. And you can only "refute" statement, explanation or prediction, through testing and observation, eg evidences or experiments.

If you cannot test it, then it isn't "falsifiable" - and if it isn't "scientific". And if it isn't falsifiable and scientific, it is pseudoscience.

Everything you have been claiming, about transcendence, "cosmic consciousness", "ultimate reality", etc, are nothing more than pseudoscience, because they are not falsifiable.

I know that you say you “have experienced it”, “it” being the state of consciousness that surpass ordinary consciousness. All I know that it is true, is that you believe what you have claimed, but there are no way that I can verify what you say or trust what you tell me to be true.

I never claimed that 'what I am doing' is science; it isn't; it is a view beyond the grasp of science. While the method of science is dissection and reduction, the method of the mystic is to apprehend reality just as it presents itself, wholly and without any attempt to intellectualize it.

If that’s true, that what you experienced has nothing to do with science. That being the case, then I don't understand why you would bring up what a “real scientist” is supposed to do.

You were the one who brought up “real scientist” up, how they should be open-minded. While I can agree with you, to a certain extent, but you are forgetting that a scientist, must also exercise some skepticism, even be skeptical of his own works.

There need to be a balance between open mind and skepticism.

Seriously, do you think scientists should just accept anything and everything of what people say?

 

[godnotgod]

No, gng.

You are forgetting that the science - as in scientific theory, and even scientific hypothesis - required to be FALSIFIABLE.

Do you understand the concept of falsification in science. It is the ability TO REFUTE any statement. And you can only "refute" statement, explanation or prediction, through testing and observation, eg evidences or experiments.

If you cannot test it, then it isn't "falsifiable" - and if it isn't "scientific". And if it isn't falsifiable and scientific, it is pseudoscience.

Everything you have been claiming, about transcendence, "cosmic consciousness", "ultimate reality", etc, are nothing more than pseudoscience, because they are not falsifiable.

I know that you say you “have experienced it”, “it” being the state of consciousness that surpass ordinary consciousness. All I know that it is true, is that you believe what you have claimed, but there are no way that I can verify what you say or trust what you tell me to be true.



If that’s true, that what you experienced has nothing to do with science. That being the case, then I don't understand why you would bring up what a “real scientist” is supposed to do.

You were the one who brought up “real scientist” up, how they should be open-minded. While I can agree with you, to a certain extent, but you are forgetting that a scientist, must also exercise some skepticism, even be skeptical of his own works.

There need to be a balance between open mind and skepticism.

Seriously, do you think scientists should just accept anything and everything of what people say?

I never said nor implied such a thing.

The basic problem with your argument is that I am not presenting the experience of higher consciousness as science, as the source of factual knowledge, at all. You have not been paying attention. I have repeatedly told you that the mystical experience is transcendent of the rational mind, but you keep brushing that aside to replace it with your own warped view, which negates your entire argument as presented above.

While the mystic embraces science, the scientist rejects the mystical view. There is nothing wrong with science, but it is only a partial view of reality, and, in that sense, is not quite right. It is like seeing into things with x-ray vision, but that is all it sees. So it comes up with seemingly logical but perfectly sterile views, such as consciousness being equivalent to nothing more than a complex set of chemical reactions. As Alan Watts once said: "The man of knowledge gives us all the facts, but tells us nothing"

The mystical view is also falsifiable, but not via scientific standards. If consciousness is truly universal, we should see mystics saying basically the same thing about the nature of reality independently of one another's experiences both in time and place throughout the world. And once you can learn to see behind the superficial differences in spirituality, it becomes obvious that these mystics are tapping into a single universal source within. Have you noticed the explosion of these views all around the world within the last several decades? At the very least, people are realizing that there is something far greater than the sterile descriptions of reality that science provides, not to say that these descriptions are inaccurate, but that they are far from complete. We should use them only insofar as they augment our direct experience of Reality itself. By themselves, they paint a picture of a dead and sterile universe, with life arising within it as a mere fluke. Problem with science is that it has the magnification turned up way too high.

On the other side of things, we have the rigid dogma of religion, which is also being rejected as unable to provide the spiritual nourishment the soul hungers for, and is the very reason that the feminine aspect has become more and more important in a world of patriarchal dominance, where what is of utmost importance is the letter of the law, rather than its spirit. Today, we have a resurgence of interest and practice in feminine-based disciplines like Zen, Yoga, Wicca, Sufism, Taoism, and spirituality in general, and it is this kind of energy that has been the basis, in part, for the transformation of consciousness in the world of science as well as in religion, and especially in Quantum Physics, much to the chagrin of the materialists, who continue to cling to their dying paradigm at all costs, using science and mathematics as a shield. But the cat has been out of the bag for a good while now, and it is just a matter of time before (if not already) materialism is no longer seen as a valid view of reality.

But a question, if you will:

What do you think it is that is prompting the scientist to pursue his inquiries?

 

[gnostic]

The mystical view is also falsifiable, but not via scientific standards.

Sorry, but “falsifiable”, mean being able to refute any statement, any explanation, any proposal, any claim.

If I were, or some other outsiders, should refute your whatever claim about mysticism, can you accept it?

The reason why science concern itself with fallibility, is that any statement, can be “questioned”, “challenged” and most important of all, “tested”.

Fallibility has nothing to with experience of inner consciousness or spirituality, or with ultimate reality.

If you think for a moment that your reality cannot be refuted at all, as in irrefutable, then your mysticism is no more falsifiable than any Abrahamic faith or any other superstitious belief.

 

[godnotgod]

Sorry, but “falsifiable”, mean being able to refute any statement, any explanation, any proposal, any claim.

If I were, or some other outsiders, should refute your whatever claim about mysticism, can you accept it?

The reason why science concern itself with fallibility, is that any statement, can be “questioned”, “challenged” and most important of all, “tested”.

Fallibility has nothing to with experience of inner consciousness or spirituality, or with ultimate reality.

If you were a prisoner in Plato's Cave, and one of you escaped and returned to tell about a glorious Sun just outside the cave, can you falsify his claim by going to see for yourself; that is to say, via your own direct experience?

If you think for a moment that your reality cannot be refuted at all, as in irrefutable, then your mysticism is no more falsifiable than any Abrahamic faith or any other superstitious belief.

It is impossible to refute the experience of Higher Consciousness via the methodology of science, because it is beyond the grasp of that methodology. Therefore, using the logic you so highly tout, another kind of confirmation of its authenticity must be employed. However, as I have already pointed out, and which you continue to deliberately ignore, is the fact that the mystical view is not a belief system in the manner of Abrahamic faith or superstitious belief. Belief requires a doctrine, which is a product of the thinking mind; the mystical view is not a product of thought, and therefore, again employing logic, cannot be a belief.

You have not answered my question:

What do you think it is that is prompting the scientist to pursue his inquiries?

 

[gnostic]

It is impossible to refute the experience of Higher Consciousness via the methodology of science, because it is beyond the grasp of that methodology. Therefore, using the logic you so highly tout, another kind of confirmation of its authenticity must be employed. However, as I have already pointed out, and which you continue to deliberately ignore, is the fact that the mystical view is not a belief system in the manner of Abrahamic faith or superstitious belief. Belief requires a doctrine, which is a product of the thinking mind; the mystical view is not a product of thought, and therefore, again employing logic, cannot be a belie

You have presented nothing more than just your personal belief.

Faith or not, your mysticism is still a belief system.

And why do you keep bringing up Plato’s Cave?

It is nothing more than anecdotal example, which is no better than an allegory or a parable. And it hardly validate your belief in the higher consciousness. Equating the prisoner’s experience with seeing the sun, and that of transcendent state, is flimsy or very superficial at best.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing? As some of the major scientific theories from the 20th century claimed or was there an originator of some sort? Doesn't have to be God necessarily in your opinion. Who believes the universe has no beginning? I'm just curious as to what you guys believe with regard to this topic and what the basis of your belief would be?

"Nothing" is a curious term. What do we mean by it?

In the absence of all matter, for instance -- the absence of all things which possess spatiotemporal extension and which possess some form of mass and/or energy (used, as I will ever use it, strictly in the physical sense of the capacity to perform work) -- would we have "nothing?" I don't think so. Call me a neo-Platonist if you will, but it seems that some propositions would still be true outside of the material such as "1+1=2," "If A > B and B > C then A > C," and probably most pertinently, "A = A," "A v ¬A," and "¬(A ^ ¬A)."

"Nothing" may well be an impossible state of affairs if we mean something more than just the absence of material things.

As for whether the universe has a beginning, there's no reason to believe that it does: we have no data to go off of prior to the Planck epoch of the Big Bang event (should a word like "prior" even make any sense under those states of affairs given that time as we know it derives its asymmetry from an entropic gradient). The current *state* of the observable universe certainly began, but that's not the same as having an ontological beginning.

If I had to take a guess, I'd guess existence has always existed in some form or another because things like logical limitation are incorrigible and ontologically necessary.

 

[12jtartar]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing? As some of the major scientific theories from the 20th century claimed or was there an originator of some sort? Doesn't have to be God necessarily in your opinion. Who believes the universe has no beginning? I'm just curious as to what you guys believe with regard to this topic and what the basis of your belief would be?

Tomorrow’s Child
There is a term, ex nihilo, or ex nihilo nihilfit. These terms mean creation out of nothing, and nobody can create something out of nothing. This is true!!! Even the Almighty does not create something out of nothing!! God creates matter out of energy, His own energy.
All these theory’s about how the universe was created, go against all the basic laws of physics. Also Thermodynamics.
The idea of a Singularity, as explained by pseudo scientists, is impossible. Science tells us that about 99% of Atoms is space. If you crushed the earth to take out all the space of every atom, the earth would still be larger that a Softball, but they tell us that He the entire Universe was a Singularity.
Then all scientists know the Law about explosions, the larger the explosion the greater the Chaos. Then they try to tell us that the greatest explosion ever created The Cosmos. The very term Cosmos means Order, Harmony. Just how did the greatest explosion create the maximum order??? All laws of Physics say it is impossible!!! Are we then to put much trust in people who have such Faith in the Impossible, but no Faith in The Almighty God who says that He Created all things in heaven and on earth??Genesis 1:1, Acts17:22-28, Revelation 4:11, Isaiah 45:18,19.

 

[godnotgod]

You have presented nothing more than just your personal belief.

Faith or not, your mysticism is still a belief system.

And why do you keep bringing up Plato’s Cave?

It is nothing more than anecdotal example, which is no better than an allegory or a parable. And it hardly validate your belief in the higher consciousness. Equating the prisoner’s experience with seeing the sun, and that of transcendent state, is flimsy or very superficial at best.

It is to illustrate the fact, via metaphor, that some things do not require evidence to substantiate.

So please answer my two questions:

1> If you were a prisoner in Plato's Cave, and one of you escaped and returned to tell about a glorious Sun just outside the cave, can you falsify or affirm his claim by going to see for yourself; that is to say, via your own direct experience?

2> What do you think it is that is prompting the scientist to pursue his inquiries?

The prisoner who saw the Sun has no belief in mind; his experience is all about what he sees, without thought; without belief.

 

[godnotgod]

Tomorrow’s Child
There is a term, ex nihilo, or ex nihilo nihilfit. These terms mean creation out of nothing, and nobody can create something out of nothing. This is true!!! Even the Almighty does not create something out of nothing!! God creates matter out of energy, His own energy.
All these theory’s about how the universe was created, go against all the basic laws of physics. Also Thermodynamics.
The idea of a Singularity, as explained by pseudo scientists, is impossible. Science tells us that about 99% of Atoms is space. If you crushed the earth to take out all the space of every atom, the earth would still be larger that a Softball, but they tell us that He the entire Universe was a Singularity.
Then all scientists know the Law about explosions, the larger the explosion the greater the Chaos. Then they try to tell us that the greatest explosion ever created The Cosmos. The very term Cosmos means Order, Harmony. Just how did the greatest explosion create the maximum order??? All laws of Physics say it is impossible!!! Are we then to put much trust in people who have such Faith in the Impossible, but no Faith in The Almighty God who says that He Created all things in heaven and on earth??Genesis 1:1, Acts17:22-28, Revelation 4:11, Isaiah 45:18,19.

It is not that something was created from nothing, but rather that, what you only think to be something, is, in reality, nothing. And contrary to what some scientists still say about the so called 'material' world, we now know that what were previously thought to be material particles, are none other than the result of energy fluctuations in the fields within which they are detected. Some disagree, but many others are now saying that such 'particles' are what are known as 'standing waves'. IOW, there are no 'particles' as such.

The Hindus have told us for over 4000 years that the 'material' world is an illusion, but an illusion of a very high caliber, and that it is the result of the play of the divine nature which you call 'God', and others call Brahman, Tao, Void, Unified Field, Ground of all Being, Pure Consciousness, Pure Abstract Intelligence, That, etc. When man awakens to his true divine nature, he realizes that he is none other than That, just as the drop of water is none other than the ocean itself. But because the mind of man is conditioned into a subject/object split, he sees himself as separate from That, when the reality is that he has never, not even for a moment, been separated from That.

“We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all.”

Kalu Rinpoche

 

[godnotgod]

"Nothing" is a curious term. What do we mean by it?

...I'd guess existence has always existed in some form or another because things like logical limitation are incorrigible and ontologically necessary.

'Existence' implies both Time and Space, as well as non-existence. So the very moment you conceive of it, you also must, by definition, understand it against it's background, non-existence. But Nothing is non-dual, beyond the relative conceptual trappings of 'existence' and 'non-existence', which, when properly understood, are together a single reality ala Yin and Yang.

So for 'existence' to be a reality, Time and Space must already be in place.

But what is the absolute background, which does not come and go, to existence/non-existence, against which Everything is?

 

[Meow Mix]

'Existence' implies both Time and Space, as well as non-existence. So the very moment you conceive of it, you also must, by definition, understand it against it's background, non-existence. But Nothing is non-dual, beyond the relative conceptual trappings of 'existence' and 'non-existence', which, when properly understood, are together a single reality ala Yin and Yang.

So for 'existence' to be a reality, Time and Space must already be in place.

But what is the absolute background, which does not come and go, to existence/non-existence, against which Everything is?

Time and space may not be required for existence: mathematics are aspatial and atemporal, though they can be used to describe temporal and spatial things, for instance. This depends on if you consider things like mathematical objects to exist (I do).

Seems to me the defining factor between existence and non-existence is definition itself: limitation. Even the absence of matter is a form of limitation in that it follows logical identity and its corollaries (e.g., call the existence of all matter x, and suppose ¬x. Turns out it would still be true that ¬x = ¬x, so a form of logical identity would still be real). Logical identity (which is what limitation really is, or vice versa) may be this "absolute background" you're seeking.

 

[godnotgod]

Time and space may not be required for existence: mathematics are aspatial and atemporal, though they can be used to describe temporal and spatial things, for instance. This depends on if you consider things like mathematical objects to exist (I do).

Mathematical objects can only exist where the concepts of time and space are included. IOW, time and space are not actual, but conceptual only; however, these conceptual overlays have come to be seen and understood as being real. A mathematical object is, after all, just a model, is it not? So math, time, and space all work together, but only as conceptual overlays.

Seems to me the defining factor between existence and non-existence is definition itself: limitation. Even the absence of matter is a form of limitation in that it follows logical identity and its corollaries (e.g., call the existence of all matter x, and suppose ¬x. Turns out it would still be true that ¬x = ¬x, so a form of logical identity would still be real). Logical identity (which is what limitation really is, or vice versa) may be this "absolute background" you're seeking.

What you are describing are relative values which are the products of the subject/object split, the reality being that they form a single reality. But yes, such definitions are finite in nature, and therefore limited.

I do not seek the background; it is the background that is seeking itself, in the form of identity called 'I'. But no, the background is not identity at all, but playing itself as such, 'identity' being an illusion. The background is beyond all identification, and therefore, beyond all limitation. It is The Infinite, out of which all that is finite emerges, and to which all that is finite returns.

'Identity', or 'existence' is only 'true' when understood in Time and Space. It is Being that is outside of Time and Space, because it is beyond Identity, or limitation. It is limitless, and cannot be encapsulated via any definition or conceptual overlay.

The Buddha said: 'negate negation', so even the idea of nothing must be ultimately negated as absolute nothingness, truly the Ultimate Reality.

 

[`mud]

Butttttt.......there wasn't ever a nothingness !
Unless it was in the singularity !
Then and only then, would it be ........
Damn....that get's nowhere, doesn't it ?