What is the ultimate expression of everythingness?

[Amorphos]

What is the ultimate expression of everythingness?

In material form a human being is pretty mush the ultimate form inho, it could have four arms like shiva, but that would be cumbersome and use up more brain resources. Equally the brain could be bigger, but that to would also be cumbersome, because it is better to have shorter connections.

However if we were to go way out into the realms of the imagination and into an idealised realm of being, what then would be the ultimate expression? Beyond the material maybe shiva’s arms would be fully utilised, and a mind unlimited by the restraints of the physical brain.

Going further, maybe we wouldn’t need any instrumentation, more arms to do things and more brain to think things. A fullest of expression would be the ability to do anything with the mind, think a world and it would appear, probably most of us would think of something similar to what we have, which differences like no disease or death, so what do we fill our world with?

One thing is worlds, another thing is beings, given no restraints what kind of beings could we become, would god or gods be any different?

What then is the blend of ultimate world and ultimate mind?

all ideas welcome and scrutinised, moreover what does this idea tell us about reality, if for example it has that very nature [whatever it is] within it.

[Thalassocrat]

The lack of things to be done which indirectly means the lack of physical form which indirectly means......don't think this end, there is no ultimate save for non-existence

[Morkonan]

...What then is the blend of ultimate world and ultimate mind?...

Pure thought, unrestrained.

But, that's not quite likely if we're using the known Universe and its rules as a model.

Physically, the only fairly constant physical form that appears to be generally preferred is bilateral symmetry. It's very popular (from what we can tell on Earth) and offers a lot of advantages.

I don't think there is an "ultimate expression of everythingness" that is going to be universally valid. Perception is 9/10'ths of the Law, so to speak. Versions on "ultimate" could differ significantly. The great equalizer is "consciousness" and every idea on some ultimate expression would, in my opinion, have to include it.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Tao is a pretty good explanation.

Suggest reading the Tao Te Ching I found it interesting.

[Demokritos]

Theoretically: God.

[Amorphos]

Thalassocrat

The lack of things to be done which indirectly means the lack of physical form which indirectly means

A lack of, is always less than the expression of, although…

An ‘invisible everything’ may be somewhere near ‘it’, i.e. an emptiness full of everything ~ although that would be the ultimate un-expression perhaps.

Morkonan

Pure thought, unrestrained.

Nice one! I can see this as a kind of expression of everythingness, or more the result of it.

I am beginning to wonder if ‘the ultimate expression of everythingness’ is actually the flaw of reality, it cannot reach but it tries to, hence we are part of an impossible project, and that is why we don’t understand the purpose of life ~ its because life doesn’t!

G-Megas-Doux

Yeah I have read the tao, are we the tao or do we try to flow by the tao? In other words is 'the way', all.

Demokritos

Theoretically: God.

Note; ‘everythingness’! for god to be the ultimate expression he would have to [well, not be a he for a start] be all good and evil, and we would all be part of god, and so would poo.

[Playfishpaste]

You can't have degrees of everything, everything is simply everything, just as nothing is simply nothing, not nothingness. Everything is something with a finite value.

The ultimate expression of everything (that can at least be supported with empirical evidence) is the Multiverse.

[G-Megas-Doux]

You can't have degrees of everything, everything is simply everything, just as nothing is simply nothing, not nothingness. Everything is something with a finite value.

The ultimate expression of everything (that can at least be supported with empirical evidence) is the Multiverse.

I would not say there is enough evidence for a Multiverse. Universe yes. Multiverse no.

[Playfishpaste]

I would not say there is enough evidence for a Multiverse. Universe yes. Multiverse no.

I disagree due to the advent of supersymmetry.

[Ummon]

The perfect compression of being and unbeing is love: the one which expresses the whole preserving its topology.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I disagree due to the advent of supersymmetry.

Just had a brief look into that. Supersymmetry seems to have only one link (so far found to identify it being possible) to a theory involving a hypothetical elementary particle.

To my knowledge science cannot prove the existence of one thing by only using something else for which we have no evidence of the existence of this thing being used for evidence.

Multiverse is still conjectured right now and not a theory of greater validity than universe.

In terms of language also, the technicality is that multi means many or more than one it does not signify all and uni means all, a whole and oneness.

[Playfishpaste]

Just had a brief look into that. Supersymmetry seems to have only one link (so far found to identify it being possible) to a theory involving a hypothetical elementary particle.

Assuming you are talking about the higgs boson, no that's not the case at all, and it actually makes a lot of testable predictions and offers a better explanation then any current theory or quantum gravity or relativity, for starters look here: http://www.amazon.com/Superstring-Th.../dp/0521357527

To my knowledge science cannot prove the existence of one thing by only using something else for which we have no evidence of the existence of this thing being used for evidence.

This would mean that superstring theory is not science, which would mean that Jim Gates and Stephen Hawking are not scientists.

Multiverse is still conjectured right now and not a theory of greater validity than universe.

Yes it is, in terms of evidence and predictions, the only reason it is not publicized as fact is we are trying to determine which multiverse theory is correct, and what "universe" actually implies.

In terms of language also, the technicality is that multi means many or more than one it does not signify all and uni means all, a whole and oneness.

We do not live in a whole, but a pool of randomly occuring universes. What does this pool consist of? Absolutely nothing. Does that make all of the universes added up equal to a universe? That is precisely what is up for debate.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Assuming you are talking about the higgs boson, no that's not the case at all, and it actually makes a lot of testable predictions and offers a better explanation then any current theory or quantum gravity or relativity, for starters look here: http://www.amazon.com/Superstring-Th.../dp/0521357527

[COLOR=#6d6155][FONT=Verdana]

This would mean that superstring theory is not science, which would mean that Jim Gates and Stephen Hawking are not scientists.

[COLOR=#6d6155][FONT=Verdana]

Yes it is, in terms of evidence and predictions, the only reason it is not publicized as fact is we are trying to determine which multiverse theory is correct, and what "universe" actually implies.

[COLOR=#6d6155][FONT=Verdana]

We do not live in a whole, but a pool of randomly occuring universes. What does this pool consist of? Absolutely nothing. Does that make all of the universes added up equal to a universe? That is precisely what is up for debate.

I gladly join the debate. I have stated elsewhere my opinion on the dubiousness of statistics, I will not repeat why here unless you ask. Statistics before the fact is lack of evidence.

If we are trying to determine which theory is correct then we can not have enough understanding of the concept you are bringing to the table, nor are we sure as to its existence.

Scientists are scientists because the research what they say. Theoretical papers are progress reports on a line of reasoning to show the logic. They are not fact. Until proven as fact they are in the realms of a theology.

The debate was what is an expression of everythingness. This means that when a lack of mathematical expression exists we must use words.

Tao, All and Universal are all equally valid terms by definition, however Multiverse is not due to the separate viewable nature being phasic and not referring to all.

[Demokritos]

Demokritos

Note; ‘everythingness’! for god to be the ultimate expression he would have to [well, not be a he for a start] be all good and evil, and we would all be part of god, and so would poo.

Yes, what's the theoretical problem with that? If God has the universe as his (physical) body and this body is infinite in size, then there would be nothing outside God, everything that exists will be a part of God and none of it (no part, like poo) will be God: only the sum of everything will be God. The very size of God would then explain the difficulty for any part of universe to percieve him. Yet, in this way, God could also be said to be omnipresent, omnipowerful etc, since he would be present wherever a part of him is present, etc.

The dichotomy of good and evil could be a relative thing. Before analyzing these two realities, when concieved as different parts of the world, neither good nor evil can be said to apply to God himself. In other words, God would be neither good nor evil: he'd be the product of the two. It might take the perspective of one living part of the universe for any other part to appear good or evil, but the whole to be beyond that.

But the contrast principle ought to make the perception of "evil" to be absolutely necessary for anyone to also be able to percieve "good". And that which makes the perception of "good" possible must also be a good thing. In this way, what is percieved as "evil" turns in reality out to be an "unpleasant good", and everything's just different shades of "good". And if everything is different shades of good, and God is everything, then God is good, too.

But the idea of "unpleasant good" doesn't rhyme with our current world view, which I call the "Parenthesis Theory of Life". Nothing makes sense if we only have one life. For things to start making sense, we need a different world view.

[Copperknickers II]

The periodic table stapled onto Stephen Hawking's 'a brief history of time' is the greatest expression of everythingness.

[godol shmok]

I like the first part of Ummon's answer - love. What are ethics, politics, physics, techné, any kind of logos and mathesis before love? I disagree a bit with the second part the topology, but that was another chapter not to be discussed here.

[Bovril]

Pictorial answer:



or



These are the two systems I know of which attempt to unite being and essence in the way the OP asks for. Obviously I am refering to more than just Christianity and Buddhism, but to the idea of the Messiah (fully God, fully man) also called an avatar in some traditions, and the idea of the union of the self with the transcendent, which is the object of Buddhism but also of much Christian mysticism and Suffi Islam.
Christianity and Buddhism do have particularly well develloped ideas about these two paths however.

[Amorphos]

Playfishpaste

You can't have degrees of everything, everything is simply everything, just as nothing is simply nothing, not nothingness.

Agreed, in fact the reality of both I would think are the same thing ~ probably something that cannot rightly be called either nothingness or everythingness, and yet when we try to define such notions in our minds, what we end up with is an indescribable everythingness.

Everything is something with a finite value.

Or every-‘thing’ are states or everythingness with a finite value, although not all states are finite [the infinite state for example].

The ultimate expression of everything (that can at least be supported with empirical evidence) is the Multiverse.

Logically where do we stop with the notion of multiverse? After a point we are left with a limited set, this is because we are only considering kinds of material universes. This leaves a gap in my mind, it doesn’t fully draw the reality map, somewhere along the line perhaps we need to add an infiniverse [a universe built of infinities] [and maybe many of them]. Then we may consider variants betwixt these two main kinds of expressions of everythingness, and that all touch upon the infinite and the everythingness. Some people say that this, our universe is the multiverse and includes all-time, so a fuller image of our universe would draw the reality map.

Ummon

The perfect compression of being and unbeing is love: the one which expresses the whole preserving its topology.

Good point, and we mustn’t confine any ideas of everythingness to the coldness of materialism. We could also say aliveness and awareness are similar things.

Demokritos

Yes, what's the theoretical problem with that? If God has the universe as his (physical) body and this body is infinite in size, then there would be nothing outside God…

I was running with that until you said; “everything that exists will be a part of God and none of it will be God: only the sum of everything will be God“. this puts the thing you just defined as everythingness outside of itself and determines it to be something other than that very thing you just defined it as being? Perhaps we could say that god is everythingness, but we cannot define that by any given example, and hence, we cannot right define god by any of its parts. So I suppose it all hinges on the idea of a ‘sum’ of everythingness’, is there one? Can we have a thing that is not within the sphere of things? We can certainly have an emptiness or a nothingness, we may even be able to have a way of things like the tao, or the infinite equation of everythingness. I would posit that before we arrive at such ideas as a blueprint, plan or way we would have to consider the everythingness as a totality an absolute, but I don’t think we can do that as it would be giving a limit to the unlimited.

Bovril

These are the two systems I know of which attempt to unite being and essence in the way the OP asks for.

I see your point, though I see such people as strictly representatives of such a human connection with divinity. For them to actually be the living manifestation of universal divinity, the everythingness would necessarily have to be anthropomorphic. Even if we as humans can encompassed a multitude of aspects of the divine, I don’t think we can rightly say that covers it, there would remain many aspect of the everythingness that are nothing to do with humanity.

[Demokritos]

Demokritos
I was running with that until you said; “everything that exists will be a part of God and none of it will be God: only the sum of everything will be God“. this puts the thing you just defined as everythingness outside of itself and determines it to be something other than that very thing you just defined it as being? Perhaps we could say that god is everythingness, but we cannot define that by any given example, and hence, we cannot right define god by any of its parts. So I suppose it all hinges on the idea of a ‘sum’ of everythingness’, is there one?

Ah, yes, that was a sloppy formulation of mine. "Everything that exists" would of course include God, if he exists, so some part of everything must then be God, which the formulation just denied. Sorry about that. Let's try again then...

If God has the universe as his body and this body is infinite in size, then there would be nothing outside God. There would be only one God because there could be only one thing which is infinite in size. No finite thing would be God, every finite thing that exists would be a part of God, and only the sum of every finite thing (infinite in number) could be God. With the finite and infinite - just as the animate and (apparent) inanimate - uniting only in God, the case is made for God being the only thing that fits the description of ”the ultimate expression of everythingness”.

This sounds better as far as theory goes, don't you think? But it takes some pondering to see whether it's good enough.

Can we have a thing that is not within the sphere of things? We can certainly have an emptiness or a nothingness, we may even be able to have a way of things like the tao, or the infinite equation of everythingness.

The whole is a thing which is not within the ”sphere of things” since it is the very ”sphere of things”. And ”everythingness” must be some sort of whole – or ultimate sense of unity. The term sounds like it refers to a quality which every thing has or to a sense of unity with everything else which a living being has rather than to a quality all things put together has. The quality which every part of a bike has can be different from the quality which the bike has. But, going from the inaminate to the animate, the ”ultimate sense of unity” might quite well be described as an ”everythingness”.

I would posit that before we arrive at such ideas as a blueprint, plan or way we would have to consider the everythingness as a totality an absolute, but I don’t think we can do that as it would be giving a limit to the unlimited

I don't quite follow you here. What is limited in an ”everythingness” regarded as an absolute totality? The possible number of such things? Yes, but it follows by logical necessity that any whole is singular. If the whole of the world is a living being we call ”God” and this world is infinite in size, then God is limited in number but unlimited in a different way. There's no logical inconsistency in that. As always in any philosophal endeavor, one has to be very clear about what one refers to. But you may have meant that the unlimited would be limited in a more contrary way?

[Amorphos]

Demokritos

Let's try again then...

I am impressed, most people wont admit even the slightest of error, you are a very good thinker.

If God has the universe as his body and this body is infinite in size, then there would be nothing outside God.

Well, the body isn’t infinite in size, but we could in theory think of god as the infinite mind of all reality. I am always left wondering why we would call it god though ~ that would be quite a discussion eh!

There would be only one God because there could be only one thing which is infinite in size.

This is primarily true, we have to consider reality as a single whole ultimately, anything else would be duplicitous wouldn’t you agree?

No finite thing would be God, every finite thing that exists would be a part of God,

Or of existence, there is nothing which says we should call that god.

and only the sum of every finite thing (infinite in number) could be God.

Every finite thing does not add up to infinite, the sum [?] of all things is simply the collection of those things. To begin with, a sum [noun: the whole amount] is an absolute, yet in the universe there are always particles coming in and out of existence, along with a vast amount of particles that aren’t quite existent nor non existent. We simply don’t have something that everything adds up to, because it is impossible.

It’s a better explanation you make but If there is a creator, I don’t think we can define him in these terms, perhaps we could think of him as the agent of creation and change, one that isn’t infinite nor finite but betwixt the two, …but we then have to qualify that.

The whole is a thing which is not within the ”sphere of things” since it is the very ”sphere of things”.

Semantics. The sphere of things and the whole are just different terms to describe the same thing.

The quality which every part of a bike has can be different from the quality which the bike has. But, going from the inaminate to the animate, the ”ultimate sense of unity” might quite well be described as an ”everythingness”.

I don’t see how, the unity may combine or encompass the parts, but the everythingness combines them both.

If the whole of the world is a living being we call ”God”

If the whole is a living being, how do we define dead things? We have to be careful as to how we define wholeness, as soon as we say it is ‘this’ X, then we are defining a wholeness by something other than it. This is at the heart of the problem.

What I was referring to is that you cannot call the infinite, absolute and that is paramount.