Twoness: A Theory for the Basis of Order found in Ancient Wisdom

[sameandnot]

from the first, not another is.

 

[Royce]

If "esse" is the universe then that would suggest a sort of "oneness".
However, in "twines" it is required that esse be observed to exist.
IE: observer + observed = "twoness"

If the universe is all that there is, and the universe or esse is being observed, then the universe is observing itself at least in part. There is nothing outside of the universe and the universe is made entirely of esse in it various forms or modes of vibration. There is One universe or if you prefer one universal set that contains and is made up of all that is, that exists.

(however, again... the interdependence between these two elements creates a "oneness"... so its all very confusing)
Without being observed esse cannot be said to exist. This includes the act of esse observing itself and this is still a "twoness" system.
One is comprised of many parts
eg: 1 = .0000001 + .005 + .8 + .00000500000100000008 etc...
How can we call this oneness?

Yes it is confusing and it takes practice in thinking this way. I can't really say that I have a good handle on it, but I am learning. The one I can understand. The Two is more Eastern thinking and while I recognize the thinking I can't say that I understand or accept complete other than as a metaphor.

 

[quantumcarl]

So in this thread, I suggested that because all of the universe vibrates and tends to exist in polar ways, and because if you notice how matter has a lot of energy compressed into it, possibly the ground state substance (esse) is vibrant, and the ocean where esse resides has compression-decompression dynamics going on all the time that would cause esse to compress.

Perhaps and maybe.

Compression? "Dynamics going all the time that would cause esse to compress"

Where does the compression come from? Dynamics? For esse to compress or be compressed would require a secondary force apart from esse (whatever esse is).

For Sameandnot.

Interestingly enough an orange is the product of sunshine, soil, water, a tree, photosynthesis and a host of other processes that go into the "manifestion" of an orange.

The more interesting part is that an orange depends wholey on these processes yet, the processes are not dependent on the orange.

Utilizing this model, please explain where the "mutual dependence" exists between an orange and... say... water.

I don't think you'll find a mutual dependence because water will carry-on and exist splendidly without the orange where the same is not true for the orange w/o the water or whathaveyou.

 

[octelcogopod]

Perhaps and maybe.
Compression?
Where does the compression come from? Dynamics? For esse to compress or be compressed would require a secondary force apart from esse (whatever esse is).

This has been my main gripe with this all along.
Les Sleeth, I think it's kind of crude to say "you don't want to leave the safety of what we have" or whatever you said.
You have absolutely no idea what kind of philosophies I've been into or what I have encountered and contemplated.
Believe it or not, all my questions for you were valid ones.

You have a basic substance, that you say is uncreated and eternal.
Fine. But where would the dynamics come from to make esse move and evolve?
Also, I don't believe this asks the question "why", the "why" question is something you cannot answer like this.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can never fully understand a system from within that system.
Meaning we may be able to explain how the universe functions, but we will never know "why."

Here are my main questions for esse:

1. If esse is eternal, how can we ever know that it is eternal? (Since esse apparently has only a few basic properties)
2. How can something with properties be eternal? (if something has a property, it seems unlikely or even impossible that such a substance would be eternal. This is because a property by default needs to evolve, and with that comes a timeline.
3. How can something with a timeline be eternal? (Since esse can compress and decompress, and it can create polarities, it seems like it must have at least some sort of inner timeline, or time dimension, if this timeline has been eternal, we end up with infinite regress like in our own universe, "what happened before that then?")

4. How can something with properties be infinite?
(Infinity leads to infinite regress, your thesis that esse is infinite doesn't answer anything. If a property exists, then that property must have some sort of time dimension to be abkle to move and be animate, but how can we call such a thing infinite and leave it at that? There will always be the question "what happened before that particular event?")

These are all valid questions, and I'm not trying to move away from or stay in the safety of the discovered sciences, this are all pure logical questions.

 

[Royce]

This is just some random thoughts brought to mind while reading all of the above.

Consider the absolute vacuum of quantum physics. It has no physical matter yet it is not completely empty of nothing as it has energy and that energy creates virtual particles. How can this be. Where does the energy reside? What does it act on? How can something that is essentially nothing still have properties and energy? How can there be any dynamics if there is nothing to be dynamic?

This is not a perfect example or metaphor as even in a vacuum there is still physical space/time and possibly/probably a Higgs field, but will have to do for the moment.

Now consider that this vacuum while devoid of physical matter is still filled with esse that is by its very nature vibrant and dynamic. The dynamic vibration of esse would fill the void with potential energy which would in turn become kinetic energy in the form of virtual particles.

Look at it in a different way. We have to pump tremendous amounts of energy out of a closed system to make a vacuum. The greater the vacuum, the greater that amount of energy we have to expend. Yet there is still more energy within the systems even though there is no longer any matter to hold that energy nor any way to remove or pump out that residual energy.

Not as an actual example but as a way to better try to understand, we could think of the vacuum as still being full of esse but esse under decompression. Here we supplied the energy to decompress esse locally in a closed system. To decompress one locality we had to compress another or wider area outside of the closed system.

Esse is everywhere and always the same and ever unchanging, the One.
Esse is in its nature vibrant and dynamic.
There is no inside or outside, or negative or positive or, high energy or low energy, or high compression or low compression. These are only metaphors used to help us physical being to understand.
Try to think of esse and pure energy itself. We don't know what pure energy is nor any of its properties, yet we know that it effects all of space/time, mass and matter and we can measure those effects. We also know that there is no place in the universe where there is no energy.
Esse is not energy but energy is a result of the vibrancy and dynamicness of esse.

 

[Royce]

Another thought to try to tie this in with the physical universe.

It is said that the universe is a sum 0 system. Matter and energy is positive and gravity is negative and summed together equal Zero. Yet the universe is an extremely varied and complicated system where forces balance other forces and energy is constantly being radiated and absorbed. Still this is in perfect balance over all. This could be another way to help understand the dynamic balance and oneness of esse.
If it happens in the physical universe, why not, because it is a property of the universe, of esse.

This is not meant to be real physical evidence of esse but just a way to get ours minds see it in a better light. If we can accept the physical evidence of these types of phenomena then it should be easier to accept the metaphysical contemplation of some of the properties of esse.
Every where I look I can see this all could be the property of esse.
(Of course everywhere I look I see the hand and mind of God too so this is probably just the random rantings of an old fool. Unless, of course, God is esse; esse is God)

 

[quantumcarl]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can never fully understand a system from within that system.

We might break the limb with both of us out here.

This idea supports what I say when I say our prejudicial bias dictates what we are conscious of and what we are able to observe.

Furthermore, the type of interdependence I have mentioned elsewhere in the philosophy section refers to the interdependence between consciousness and all things;

ie: the universe is not there without being observed = observation doesn't occur without the universe.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Believe it or not, all my questions for you were valid ones.

But see, your main point hasn't been the slightest bit valid (logically speaking) and I can prove it. Before I do, let me answer a couple of things you've said.

Les Sleeth, I think it's kind of crude to say "you don't want to leave the safety of what we have" or whatever you said.
You have absolutely no idea what kind of philosophies I've been into or what I have encountered and contemplated.

It doesn't matter much what you've contemplated since that's not my criticism. My criticism has been that you are labeling stuff as "unknowable" when I have already agreed to that. You are acting like this is a "proof" thread when it is a theorization thread. You can't change the focus of a thread that you didn't start.

You have a basic substance, that you say is uncreated and eternal. Fine. But where would the dynamics come from to make esse move and evolve?

Here's another problem, it doesn't seem like you are paying attention to my answers; I've already answered this, more than once in fact and complete with diagrams.

The dynamics I'm proposing are uncreated and eternal too. They have to be in order to avoid infinite regress.

You could conceivably accuse me of conveniently attaching every quality under the sun onto esse and the esse ocean to explain creation, but in actuality I have limited it to a very few traits.

There is esse, and it exists in an ocean. Esse itself is energetic in nature (vibrancy), and like an ocean of water, the ocean where esse resides is turbulent. Part of that turbulence results in compression of "positions" in the esse ocean.

Now tell me, how much more simple can one get in terms of postulating an uncreated ground state? I mean, existential stuff and turbulence, and from that I am ready to model every feature of existence! (Though not here, but I have been providing a sampling which you seem to ignore).

Also, I don't believe this asks the question "why", the "why" question is something you cannot answer like this.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can never fully understand a system from within that system.
Meaning we may be able to explain how the universe functions, but we will never know "why."

Here you go again with the knowing thing. I’ve already acknowledged we can’t know the key issues being discussed in this thread! In fact, look back a few posts and you’ll see I was the first one to say we will likely never actually know the origin of the universe. Geez, why should I respond to you if you aren't going to listen to my answers?

Do you understand the difference being logical and knowing (no criticism implied)? In case you don't, let me first define the difference between valid and sound logic to help me explain.

Consider the statement: all dogs are white, Jack has a dog, therefore Jack’s dog is white. The logic of that statement is perfectly valid, but it is not certain that Jack’s dog is white. The problem of course is that the statement’s opening premise is erroneous (all dogs are not white), which makes the statement logically valid but logically unsound.

But whether something is logical or not may have nothing to do with knowing. Today the standard for knowing is to experience what we hypothesize to be true. Using Jack’s dog again, if we believe Jack’s dog is white, how do we confirm it really is? If Jack tells us his dog is white, and we have deep faith in Jack’s statements, and we know every dog Jack has had in the past was white, and all the other men in the world named Jack who’ve ever had a dog has had a white one . . . then can we know from those circumstances that the Jack we are acquainted with has a white dog now? No. In other words, knowledge is not produced by logic, believing, faith, reason, statistical probabilities or any means other than through direct experience. In the case of Jack and his dog, all the facts logically indicate Jack’s dog is white, but we can only know if our belief is true if we observe Jack’s dog, or if someone else experiences what Jack’s dog looks like and makes an accurate report.

In terms of this thread, I am quite aware we cannot know the “why,” or observe eternity or infinity or conditions outside our universe. Try to understand what I am suggesting here. Since we cannot see those conditions which have created the system we are within, the idea of this inductive reasoning exercise is to try to imagine the fewest, most simple set of conditions possible that could cause what we find in this creation. Our clues are taken from traits that seem to run throughout creation, such as vibration, compression, energy.

That's it, that's the whole deal right there. If you don't like to play this sort of logic game, then don't. If you do, then please have fun. But stop telling me we can never know etc. when I already understand that and have admitted it repeatedly.

Here are my main questions for esse:

1. If esse is eternal, how can we ever know that it is eternal? (Since esse apparently has only a few basic properties)
2. How can something with properties be eternal? (if something has a property, it seems unlikely or even impossible that such a substance would be eternal. This is because a property by default needs to evolve, and with that comes a timeline.
3. How can something with a timeline be eternal? (Since esse can compress and decompress, and it can create polarities, it seems like it must have at least some sort of inner timeline, or time dimension, if this timeline has been eternal, we end up with infinite regress like in our own universe, "what happened before that then?")
4. How can something with properties be infinite?
(Infinity leads to infinite regress, your thesis that esse is infinite doesn't answer anything. If a property exists, then that property must have some sort of time dimension to be abkle to move and be animate, but how can we call such a thing infinite and leave it at that? There will always be the question "what happened before that particular event?")

These are all valid questions, and I'm not trying to move away from or stay in the safety of the discovered sciences, this are all pure logical questions.

Okay, so let's get to your claim that these are all valid and "pure logical questions." I am going to demonstrate to you that your points are neither logically valid or sound. Your first question:

“1. If esse is eternal, how can we ever know that it is eternal? (Since esse apparently has only a few basic properties)."

Again, I’ve repeatedly acknowledged we can’t know it (nor can we know about infinity). The eternal trait is a logic thing, not a knowing thing. I've answered the logic aspect before too, but I will give you the reason again.

If esse isn’t eternal, then something has to have created it, and we are either stuck with something from nothing or infinite regress, both of which are considered logical problems.2. How can something with properties be eternal? (if something has a property, it seems unlikely or even impossible that such a substance would be eternal. This is because a property by default needs to evolve, and with that comes a timeline.

This logic of yours about properties is fatally flawed. There is absolutely no reason to conclude properties limits esse as you say. Let me state your logic in a syllogism:

Anything with properties cannot be eternal or infinite, esse has properties, therefore esse is not eternal or infinite.

That logic is circular, nothing in your statement justifies anything whatsoever about properties. What are your reasons for assuming anything with properties cannot be eternal or infinite?

My logic is based at least on a bit of observation. In creation, there are traits which are just here (we have not seen them created) and which run throughout all aspects of the universe, such as vibration. The traits of uncreated-ness and ubiquitous-ness can be related to eternal and infinite respectively. Also, it is logical to assume anything in creation which appears not created by anything within creation derives from outside the universe.3. How can something with a timeline be eternal? (Since esse can compress and decompress, and it can create polarities, it seems like it must have at least some sort of inner timeline, or time dimension, if this timeline has been eternal, we end up with infinite regress like in our own universe, "what happened before that then?")


Logically you derailed there by confusing the creating force with what’s created. If compression creates a polarity, that polarity may indeed be temporary. But that has nothing to do with the dynamic I have said is uncreated and eternally acting as part of the esse ocean’s turbulence (compression-decompression dynamics). If something is occurring repeatedly forever then that process has no timeline whether or not what it creates does.

You know, I am starting to think you don’t understand what determines infinite regress. I’ve seen you apply it incorrectly several times. For example . . .4. How can something with properties be infinite?
(Infinity leads to infinite regress, your thesis that esse is infinite doesn't answer anything. If a property exists, then that property must have some sort of time dimension to be abkle to move and be animate, but how can we call such a thing infinite and leave it at that? There will always be the question "what happened before that particular event?")

You have shown absolutely not the slightest logic to propose, much less conclude, that something with properties can’t be infinite. In fact, if you understand the concept of identity in philosophy, then nothing can have identity unless it has properties. Logic demands that anything we are going to identify, including “infinite” and “eternal” have properties.

But why exactly would infinity lead to infinite regress? This really makes no sense because the two concepts are unrelated. Infinite regress is a problem that arises with creationary forces, which is why thinkers ask “but where did THAT come from.” But infinity doesn’t have to “come from” anything else, and neither does eternity.

It’s true, you can ask that question of esse, but the entire purpose of suggesting esse was to propose as a theoretical reasoning exercise a substance and set of conditions which are uncreated but which can accidentally create conditions that would lead a universe like ours.

It isn’t proper therefore to ask where esse came from in this particular discussion since it is being offered as the savior from infinite regress. By the way, you didn’t respond to my rather bold declaration earlier that:

There is no possible way to escape infinite regress unless there exists an uncreated ground state out of which all things arise.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Perhaps and maybe.
Compression? "Dynamics going all the time that would cause esse to compress"
Where does the compression come from? Dynamics? For esse to compress or be compressed would require a secondary force apart from esse (whatever esse is).

Not so. Esse of course is not a "force" it is an essence, a substance. The "force" of compression comes about due to turbulence. In a water ocean, water is the essence and waves of water exert force. It's all water. I do understand that force in waves in a water ocean come from somewhere else, but I've proposed that esse is naturally energetic, so an infinite ocean of chaotically energetic stuff could have force dynamics. See my answer above to octelcogopod.

 

[octelcogopod]

OK.
You have some good points, but it feels more like you are evading my answers than actually replying to them.
Since you put it in bold at the bottom I will answer it first.

/There is no possible way to escape infinite regress unless there exists uncreated ground state out of which all things arise./

This is a good point, maybe. But what if this way of thinking is only human?
I mean can you really say you know ALL possible solutions to the universes creation (meaning infinite regress or infinity/eternity)
I believe there can be other logical solutions, maybe not even logical.
Maybe this logic we have of time space and cause and effect is only our limited minds way of thinking.
Maybe there is some "other way" to solve the problem.

But I think I get your point now.
After your posts I sort of see esse as some rigid ocean, lying "underneath" the universe, untouched by it.
It "spawns" dynamics, but remains untouched by them.
This process of how the universe arises from esse, while esse itself remains static, uncreated and eternal, is something I haven't fully grasped yet.

You say in your later post to quantumcarl:
/I do understand that force in waves in a water ocean come from somewhere else, but I've proposed that esse is naturally energetic, so an infinite ocean of chaotically energetic stuff could have force dynamics./

My problem with this is that you yourself haven't come up with any reason why esse should be naturally energetic, and should this be taken seriously, you really need one.

Finally, about the properties of esse..
My logic wasn't as you stated, rather I can turn it around on its head and say the opposite; Can anything that DOESN'T have some sort of time dimension even move at all?
Can this esse ocean really exist without an inner logic?
If so where is this inner logic?
You simply say "it is eternal so the question where is logically invalid."
The problem with that is that you yourself have no idea what eternal means. Even if this is just a logical reasoning experiment, you still need some sort of halfway empirical logic to fit in with the view.

Take for instance the universe itself, if I ask you, "where is my apple?"
"That's a logically invalid question, the universe is eternal so the apple is everywhere, or it is nowhere" or something.
I mean it just doesn't cut it.
I can apply this logic because you yourself said that we could never see if esse was eternal, so thereby from logic we can deduce that anything in the esse ocean can be applied coordinates.
As such the question "where is my apple" is a logical one, FROM INSIDE TH E ESSE ITSELF.

Which is part ofm y point, simply saying that it is eternal doesn't help, especially when we can't prove it.
And please don't come back and say "but it is eternal and infinite, and this is just a reasoning experiment, I have nothing to prove, and esse is eternal so your question is invalid."

If that is the case, then we don't have much more to discuss.

 

[Les Sleeth]

There is no possible way to escape infinite regress unless there exists an uncreated ground state out of which all things arise.

This is a good point, maybe. But what if this way of thinking is only human?
I mean can you really say you know ALL possible solutions to the universes creation (meaning infinite regress or infinity/eternity)
I believe there can be other logical solutions, maybe not even logical.
Maybe this logic we have of time space and cause and effect is only our limited minds way of thinking.
Maybe there is some "other way" to solve the problem.

But see, what other explanations there are is irrelevant. I have simply offered you a chance to contemplate THIS explanation. I am not saying it's the true answer, or that others are wrong. This is just a thinking exercise to look at a very ancient idea by including modern discoveries in the model.

But I think I get your point now.
After your posts I sort of see esse as some rigid ocean, lying "underneath" the universe, untouched by it.
It "spawns" dynamics, but remains untouched by them.

You are getting closer, but not quite. You might use the term "rigid" to describe the fact that esse's base nature as vibratory illumination cannot essentially change. However, according to this model it is so flexible and malleable that it can take the shape of, say, atoms. Since the atoms are made out of esse, and are fully within the ocean of esse, they aren't exactly untouched by it, they are one with it. It's just that we, using our bodies to look at things, cannot see the subtle esse ocean that we are part of, made of, and within. So if you are using "underneath" metaphorically okay; but really esse is just so much more subtle and undifferentiated we can't see it. It is omnipresent.

If our universe arose from esse, then I don't see why other universes couldn't arise from esse, so I don't think you can say it is exactly static.

I suspect you forgot I said this, but there is a class of meditators who regularly experience a vibrant light in the deepest meditation. There is a long history of this experience (called samadhi in the East, and union in the West). Personally I don't see why that experience shouldn't be considered as evidence. In science only sense experience is allowed, but when we are contemplating things that science can't seem to answer, then it seems to me that all experience should be considered.

This process of how the universe arises from esse, while esse itself remains static, uncreated and eternal, is something I haven't fully grasped yet.

Compression at specific "positions" in the esse ocean. That position takes form as a polarized entity (which, for instance, I am saying is what an atom is). Where compression hasn't compressed and polarized a position in the esse ocean I have referred to as the "ground state." You might want to study the diagrams I provided again.

You say in your later post to quantumcarl:

I do understand that force in waves in a water ocean come from somewhere else, but I've proposed that esse is naturally energetic, so an infinite ocean of chaotically energetic stuff could have force dynamics.

My problem with this is that you yourself haven't come up with any reason why esse should be naturally energetic, and should this be taken seriously, you really need one.

But I have. You need to understand the inductive technique I am applying of reasoning "backwards" from ubiquitous traits we find in our universe that have no known source. Vibration is exactly that. It is here, it is everywhere, but there is no known reason for that. Why aren't you concerned about explaining that mystery? As far as I have seen, science says of the universiality of vibration "it just is." So you allow it here to exist without an explanation, but balk when I say maybe that really is "just how esse is."

Remember, my entire point is to postulate uncreated traits needed to form the foundation of creation. Vibration is most definitely part of the foundation of our creation.

Finally, about the properties of esse..
My logic wasn't as you stated, rather I can turn it around on its head and say the opposite; Can anything that DOESN'T have some sort of time dimension even move at all?

What is time? You have to be crystal clear on that question before you start limiting things because of it.

I say, time is the rate of change, nothing more. In this universe, we have matter, and it is being converted to energy and expanding. Entropy rules, so the universe is changing from order to disorder. But the rate of change is not the same everywhere in the universe. The rate of change on an accelerating spaceship is slower than on a non-accelerating space ship, so "time" is said to slow down, but really it's just the rate that entropy occurs has slowed.

In the esse ocean, esse itself is uncreated, indestructible, and existing everywhere homogeneously. At a "position" compression might generate a polar entity that is self-sustaining and vibratory. Let's say it's a hydrogen atom. How many vibrations and photon emissions does it have before it melts back into the esse ocean? We know it can vibrate faster or slower. If it vibrates and emits photons faster, then it has to return to formlessness before a neighbor atom which is vibrating and emitting slower.

That's all time is, and obviously it isn't a problem for esse, which is not subject to entropy in the ground state, to exist without time.

Can this esse ocean really exist without an inner logic?
If so where is this inner logic?

? What is internal logic? Logic is a process of consciousness, why would something unconscious need logic?

The problem with that is that you yourself have no idea what eternal means. Even if this is just a logical reasoning experiment, you still need some sort of halfway empirical logic to fit in with the view.

Of course I have an idea of what eternal is. It's utterly simple as an idea. Now experientially of course I don't know it fully, and never can since I am a created thing. On the other hand, if I could learn to experience esse directly, then I would be experiencing the one true absolute, and therefore might get a taste of the infinite and eternal.

Take for instance the universe itself, if I ask you, "where is my apple?"
"That's a logically invalid question, the universe is eternal so the apple is everywhere, or it is nowhere" or something.
I mean it just doesn't cut it.

What are you talking about? I've never said anything close to that nonsense either in substance or form. I've said that to avoid infinite regress and something from nothing, there cannot be a beginning or end of esse. If it had a beginning, then infinite regress results because you'll ask what gave it a beginning. It has to be infinite logically because if you reach the end of it, then there follows the question of what's beyond esse, and duality results.

My reasons for postulating eternal and infinite are 100% logic, and nothing more. They are there to avoid the logical contradictions that have plagued this metaphysical issue since humans first started thinking about our origins.

I can apply this logic because you yourself said that we could never see if esse was eternal, so thereby from logic we can deduce that anything in the esse ocean can be applied coordinates.
As such the question "where is my apple" is a logical one, FROM INSIDE THE ESSE ITSELF.

Lol :tongue2: . You really lost me with that one.

Which is part of my point, simply saying that it is eternal doesn't help, especially when we can't prove it.
And please don't come back and say "but it is eternal and infinite, and this is just a reasoning experiment, I have nothing to prove, and esse is eternal so your question is invalid."

If that is the case, then we don't have much more to discuss.

Sorry, but I am saying it. Take it or leave it. If you can accept energy just is or vibration just is or order just is etc. in this universe, then you can if you want temporarily for the sake of discussion accept eternity and infinite just are in the esse ocean. You simply choose to fight the notion. Why aren't you harrassing the string theorists over in physics? No one can prove much of that theory.

 

[octelcogopod]

// But see, what other explanations there are is irrelevant. I have simply offered you a chance to contemplate THIS explanation. I am not saying it's the true answer, or that others are wrong. This is just a thinking exercise to look at a very ancient idea by including modern discoveries in the model. //

But you did say that we couldn't escape infinite regress without esse, or something akin to it.




// You are getting closer, but not quite. You might use the term "rigid" to describe the fact that esse's base nature as vibratory illumination cannot essentially change. However, according to this model it is so flexible and malleable that it can take the shape of, say, atoms. Since the atoms are made out of esse, and are fully within the ocean of esse, they aren't exactly untouched by it, they are one with it. It's just that we, using our bodies to look at things, cannot see the subtle esse ocean that we are part of, made of, and within. So if you are using "underneath" metaphorically okay; but really esse is just so much more subtle and undifferentiated we can't see it. It is omnipresent. //

I imagine a rigid ocean yeah, and then some floating mass on top of it.
I do know the real implementation of it though.


// If our universe arose from esse, then I don't see why other universes couldn't arise from esse, so I don't think you can say it is exactly static. //

I meant static in the way that sincei ti s eternal, it's always there, always constant.

// I suspect you forgot I said this, but there is a class of meditators who regularly experience a vibrant light in the deepest meditation. There is a long history of this experience (called samadhi in the East, and union in the West). Personally I don't see why that experience shouldn't be considered as evidence. In science only sense experience is allowed, but when we are contemplating things that science can't seem to answer, then it seems to me that all experience should be considered. //

I'm not familiar with meditation or its implementation or value in pilosophy and science so I won't reply to the validity of this.

// Compression at specific "positions" in the esse ocean. That position takes form as a polarized entity (which, for instance, I am saying is what an atom is). Where compression hasn't compressed and polarized a position in the esse ocean I have referred to as the "ground state." You might want to study the diagrams I provided again. //

Ok. Nice.

// But I have. You need to understand the inductive technique I am applying of reasoning "backwards" from ubiquitous traits we find in our universe that have no known source. Vibration is exactly that. It is here, it is everywhere, but there is no known reason for that. Why aren't you concerned about explaining that mystery? As far as I have seen, science says of the universiality of vibration "it just is." So you allow it here to exist without an explanation, but balk when I say maybe that really is "just how esse is." //

I am too concerned about this mystery.
All I'm saying is we might never know, but you already refuted the "know" thing so..
I believe science is the way to explaining things, not philosophy.
And while I do enjoy philosophy a great deal, I feel like a theory such as this of esse, seems hard to accept because the problem seems to be much more difficult than you say it is.
It seems to be as difficult as the consciousness problem.

// Remember, my entire point is to postulate uncreated traits needed to form the foundation of creation. Vibration is most definitely part of the foundation of our creation. //

Yep, I agree. I have actually agree'd with everything you have said, except that it is eternal and infinite.
The polarization, the compression, the vibration, all great concepts, but the problem of realizing what eternal means is what bugs me.



// What is time? You have to be crystal clear on that question before you start limiting things because of it.
I say, time is the rate of change, nothing more. In this universe, we have matter, and it is being converted to energy and expanding. Entropy rules, so the universe is changing from order to disorder. But the rate of change is not the same everywhere in the universe. The rate of change on an accelerating spaceship is slower than on a non-accelerating space ship, so "time" is said to slow down, but really it's just the rate that entropy occurs has slowed. //

I believe time is more than the rate of change. I believe it is a dynamic dimension that can control the way the atoms move in space.
The problem I have with esse and time, is that i nour universe, the atoms themselves shouldn't be able to move without a time dimension, which means time is more than just mere rate of change.
It seems as if time is actually some sort of ocean in itself, balls in water or something. I dunno.

// In the esse ocean, esse itself is uncreated, indestructible, and existing everywhere homogeneously. At a "position" compression might generate a polar entity that is self-sustaining and vibratory. Let's say it's a hydrogen atom. How many vibrations and photon emissions does it have before it melts back into the esse ocean? We know it can vibrate faster or slower. If it vibrates and emits photons faster, then it has to return to formlessness before a neighbor atom which is vibrating and emitting slower.

That's all time is, and obviously it isn't a problem for esse, which is not subject to entropy in the ground state, to exist without time. //

But where does this compression come from?
Sorry if this seems dull to you, but you said earlier that esse is naturally energetic.
In terms of time, I meant, how can something compress without a time dimension to allow it to change?
How can ANYTHING change without some sort of time?



// ? What is internal logic? Logic is a process of consciousness, why would something unconscious need logic? //

When I say logic, I mean the basic rules that are unbreakable.
I should have said that though.



// Of course I have an idea of what eternal is. It's utterly simple as an idea. Now experientially of course I don't know it fully, and never can since I am a created thing. On the other hand, if I could learn to experience esse directly, then I would be experiencing the one true absolute, and therefore might get a taste of the infinite and eternal. //

Once again I'm not too sure about meditation since I've barely done it myself so I won't comment.
However, I doubt a human mind has the capacity to experience infinity by itself, even if it involves "experiencing the absolute."





// What are you talking about? I've never said anything close to that nonsense either in substance or form. I've said that to avoid infinite regress and something from nothing, there cannot be a beginning or end of esse. If it had a beginning, then infinite regress results because you'll ask what gave it a beginning. It has to be infinite logically because if you reach the end of it, then there follows the question of what's beyond esse, and duality results.

My reasons for postulating eternal and infinite are 100% logic, and nothing more. They are there to avoid the logical contradictions that have plagued this metaphysical issue since humans first started thinking about our origins. //

Ahhh.. OK.
So you are just saying it as an alternative solution to those two problems.



* I can apply this logic because you yourself said that we could never see if esse was eternal, so thereby from logic we can deduce that anything in the esse ocean can be applied coordinates.
As such the question "where is my apple" is a logical one, FROM INSIDE THE ESSE ITSELF. *

// Lol :tongue2: . You really lost me with that one. //

Meh.

// Sorry, but I am saying it. Take it or leave it. If you can accept energy just is or vibration just is or order just is etc. in this universe, then you can if you want temporarily for the sake of discussion accept eternity and infinite just are in the esse ocean. You simply choose to fight the notion. Why aren't you harrassing the string theorists over in physics? No one can prove much of that theory. //

My whole point was the following:

Esse is something that is eternal and infinite, but since we cannot observer infinity from the esse itself, shoudl we ever observe it in a lab, the idea is useless.
So you said that it is just a logical reasoning experiment, so then I say OK, I'm all for that, but I won't "believe" in it, I won't trust it as true, I won't teach it to my children. If youy get my point.

I still have some issues with the general logic of it, but those involves dragging in empirical evidence and such, so I won't go there.

 

[quantumcarl]

Not so. Esse of course is not a "force" it is an essence, a substance. The "force" of compression comes about due to turbulence. In a water ocean, water is the essence and waves of water exert force. It's all water. I do understand that force in waves in a water ocean come from somewhere else, but I've proposed that esse is naturally energetic, so an infinite ocean of chaotically energetic stuff could have force dynamics. See my answer above to octelcogopod.

You must be referring to fluid dynamics which rely on gravity as a secondary force to its own "turbulent" dynamics. Gravity is a result of the mass of the fluid. Gravity increases in intensity as the mass causing the gravity grows in size. An analogy between what you call esse and fluid will fall short of being an efficient metaphore.

Defining what you call esse and what I call the unnamed way is not easy and may be impossible because, as sameandnot and I agree upon, one cannot see the edges of the system one relies upon. Perhaps because it's better not to look a gift horse in the mouth, even if you can. But mostly because trying to see the uncarved block is impossible because it is uncarved and without definition and without description.