Is the Absolute a Logical Concept?

[Eric England]

I'm struggling with "implicate and explicate". My sense is, that "extended in space/time" can apply to either one, depending on if you are looking at space/time from the inside out or the outside in.

All, are aspects of a single inconceivable – the name of which, is?

In conceiving all that is conceivable and arriving at the inconceivable, and knowing that it is so; it might seem like we haven't arrived, but haven't we?

What are the implications of what we have passed through and their relationship to what cannot be conceived?

If our goal is to merely conceive (give birth to/create), then we remain chained to an illusion of power. We remain unwitting victims of our viewpoint.

 

[Canute]

I mentioned implicate/explicate because I wondered whether you were proposing something along the lines of David Bohm. He proposes there are these two levels of order in the universe, and this seemed to connect with some of what you said. Maybe not.

I agree with your last point, about being chained to our conceptions and victims of our viewpoint. This seems to me to be what Plato's cave allegory is about. On the rest I'm unclear.

Does your idea represent a theory of cosmogenesis? Are you saying that from a (hypothetical) viewpoint outside of this universe it would be a singularity, and that only from the inside does it appear boundless/infinite?

 

[Eric England]

Does your idea represent a theory of cosmogenesis?

"In Cosmogenesis, Blavatsky describes that the first fundamental principle of the cosmos is "an omnipresent, eternal, boundless and immutable principle on which all speculation is impossible." She uses the term "Absolute" to describe it." – Wikispeedia

The inconceivable, is the only principle on which all speculation is impossible. Omnipresent, eternal, boundless and immutable are terms commonly attributed to the aspcets of the inconceivable, but can be misleading. Immutable is right there at the top, but eternal and boundless only apply to the universe, which is not near the top, and omnipresent suggests the "Absolute" is inside the universe. I think this is a fair interpretation.

Are you saying that from a (hypothetical) viewpoint outside of this universe it would be a singularity, and that only from the inside does it appear boundless/infinite?

Whatever it is, from either viewpoint, it is what it is.

A singularity, supposes an arrival at or departure from, infinite. It's a suprisingly persistent misconception – well, not so suprising actually. We all tend to want something tangible, which boils down to the finite. We tend to believe in beginnings and ends (relationships/observable universe/big bang/black holes etc.), and in singularities in general (tangible "absolutes").

The only singularity is the inconceivable.

Oops, back to infinity. It doesn't have an end or a beginning. There is no end or beginning to infinitesimal or infinite. Infinity never gets to infinitesimal or infinite. Infinity never "actually" happens, nor does the infinite universe.

As Einstein said – "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

To "appear to happen" sheds a completely different light, on every single thing we theorize about the universe. The vast majority of speculation, still revolves around the assumption that "something", must actually be happening.

Einstein again – "The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

This is a good example of understanding one of the major players in the infinity question. If time only appears to happen (happen in only a "sense"), then it has three dimensions, not one.

Time goes backward (we can think, feel, and in a "sense" put ourselves in the past). Time goes forward (we can think, feel, and in a "sense" put ourselves in the future).

Time (speed) goes up and down (it can certainly "seem" to). And time goes goes left and right (it can seem to stop and in a sense, put ourselves in the present).

As I've said before, the arrow of time is not any more real than the illusion of time. "Appearing to happen" is "will happen", that's why time seems to only move forward. If it "actually happens", then it would have happened and it would be happening, but it doesn't.

Mass and space are no different, in that they only "appear to happen". We (mass) are not actual, moving in actual space, in an actual direction of future.

Infinite time, mass, and space only appear to happen. They never depart from a "point" or arrive at one.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

 

[Canute]

Ah. Now I have a much better idea of what you're suggesting. I agree that words like omnipresent, eternal etc. would refer only to aspects of the absolute and so would be misleading. It would be more accurate to say, and I think Blavatsky would have agreed, that the Absolute has all aspects (attributes) and no aspects depending on ones viewpoint, and that because of this even the term 'Absolute' is misleading. Buddhists call it the 'unconditioned element', and this would be the only dhamma (phenomenon) that is real (as opposed to epiphenomenal).

A singularity, supposes an arrival at or departure from, infinite. It's a suprisingly persistent misconception – well, not so suprising actually. We all tend to want something tangible, which boils down to the finite. We tend to believe in beginnings and ends (relationships/observable universe/big bang/black holes etc.), and in singularities in general (tangible "absolutes").

Agreed. Something that is prior to time and space cannot be said to have a size or a duration. It seems to me that if physicists could grasp this point nonlocal effects would become explicable.

The vast majority of speculation, still revolves around the assumption that "something", must actually be happening.

I agree again. Do you know Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness? This forms the philosophical foundation of Mahayana Buddhism, and it states clearly that nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens.

Einstein again – "The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Yes, just as Nagarjuna proves. I've always assumed this is one of the reasons Einstein thought highly of Buddhism.

This is a good example of understanding one of the major players in the infinity question. If time only appears to happen (happen in only a "sense"), then it has three dimensions, not one.

Can it have dimensions if it is an illusion?

Time goes backward (we can think, feel, and in a "sense" put ourselves in the past). Time goes forward (we can think, feel, and in a "sense" put ourselves in the future).

This seems to contradict the view of time you express above, in which there is no past and future. When we remember the past we do so in the present, and when we anticipate the future we do so in the present. One Sufi master, asked how a true sage can be recognised, replies that for the true sage there is no other time other than the time they are in.

As I've said before, the arrow of time is not any more real than the illusion of time. "Appearing to happen" is "will happen", that's why time seems to only move forward. If it "actually happens", then it would have happened and it would be happening, but it doesn't.

For Buddhists time is a dependent set of relations, not an entity in its own right. What is more, these relations are between phenomena that themselves have no inherent existence. Is this also what you're suggesting?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

An illusion yes, but persistent I'm not so sure. Persistence implies time, and clearly nothing exists in the past or the future.

This is a point Nagarjuna addresses closely. The persistence of a phenomenon in a world of constant change implies that the phenomenon has a part that changes in time and an essence that does not. Buddhists deny that any such essence exists, consistent with our inability to identify one.

We seem to be arriving at an agreement. What do you think?

regards
Canute

 

[Eric England]

Ah. Now I have a much better idea of what you're suggesting... We seem to be arriving at an agreement. What do you think?

I does seem like it. You have brought up many excellent points that have required me to "reproof" and they're holding up well, except for using the term "Absolute" as you pointed out. I'm thinkin' on that one.

I agree that words like omnipresent, eternal etc. would refer only to aspects of the absolute and so would be misleading.

Omnipresent is more misleading than the others. It causes the most damage to mankind. I won't elaborate.

Agreed. Something that is prior to time and space cannot be said to have a size or a duration. It seems to me that if physicists could grasp this point nonlocal effects would become explicable.

I would add mass into the mix as well. The problem lies in the idea of "prior". They need to replace it with >.

I agree again... that nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens.

There are two common misunderstandings about this. Some take it as "not existing" or "never happens". It causes confusion if "really" (actually) is not understood for what it is.

The other misundertannding is that we are still under the assumption there is one form of "nothing". If the same nothing is used to understand the "unconditioned element", then it cannot be understood. "Nothing really exists", if misunderstood as absolute nothing, will disprove the certainty of the "absolute something".

Can it have dimensions if it is an illusion?

Being an illusion is exactly why is has dimensions. Dimensionless is > dimensional. The center (dimensionless point) of the "Absolute" is the only place inside it (for reasons I won't elaborate on). Since it is the only place, it is everywhere. Mass, space, and time ("force" as well) "appear" to move from center and take on dimension (also rotate), but in reality, they are moving towards center at the same "time" (gravity).

This seems to contradict the view of time you express above, in which there is no past and future. When we remember the past we do so in the present, and when we anticipate the future we do so in the present. One Sufi master, asked how a true sage can be recognised, replies that for the true sage there is no other time other than the time they are in.

The present is no more actual that the past and future. If you try to locate it, you will find it to be nebulous. "Be here now" is good philosophy up to a point, but it breaks down under close inspection. "Be" and "now" are part of the illusion.

For Buddhists time is a dependent set of relations, not an entity in its own right. What is more, these relations are between phenomena that themselves have no inherent existence. Is this also what you're suggesting?

I would say yes.

An illusion yes, but persistent I'm not so sure. Persistence implies time, and clearly nothing exists in the past or the future.

Persistent in the sense of stubborn. The hanging on to what is an illusion, as a reality, that keeps us from stepping into > to find the reality beyond (behind) the illusion.

... the persistence of a phenomenon in a world of constant change implies that the phenomenon has a part that changes in time and an essence that does not. Buddhists deny that any such essence exists, consistent with our inability to identify one.

Change in time, is no different than change in mass or space. No matter how one organizes them, two of them do not change within the third. They are all infinite.

The essence is not a part of the phenomenon. It is >. The phenomenon has no essence in itself. That is the illusion. What seems to be within the phenomenon is actually beyond it. 0/False at center, in respect to (reflecting) 1/True, is the essence. It is the dimensionless reality that contains a dimensional illusion.

There is no separation between the two, although there apprears to be one. Again, I won't elaborate.

As for using the term "Absolute", I think if it's termed "the Absolute", it rises above and beyond it's aspects; even though some of them are described as absolute (qualities & quantities). The name of the inconceivable is up for grabs. I've chosen what I have, for reasons of consistency and to stay away form any preconceived notions.

 

[loseyourname]

Okay, guys, we're getting some serious complaints of crackpot versions of scientific and mathematical propositions being employed here. Time to shut it down.