Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: The ontological principle of infinite transmigration! [...and do 'physics' exist].

  1. #1

    Default The ontological principle of infinite transmigration! [...and do 'physics' exist].

    The ontological principle of infinite transmigration

    What is meta-‘physical‘? [indeed what is not?][and yes I know its actual meaning*] when we ascribe this term does it not denote something which is non-physical? Included in this question and to take it full circle can we not also ask; what is ‘physical’, can you describe a single thing which is physical?

    *metaphysical
    Adjective; relating to ideas about life, existence, and other things that are not part of the physical world.

    So why use the term ‘metaphysics’ for something which is clearly not nor meant to be. Sure its only a label but sometimes philosophers use it to ascribe non physical qualia to the physical, for example thought is usually an attribute of the physical brain, this is because if you change the brain you change thought, and yet equally if we change the way we think we change the brain.
    I am a great believer in philosophical honesty, thus even though metaphysics is only a label its use as such changes the way we think about the world. Indeed if we question the very notion of ’physics’ [of the existence of {physical} objects] I think we end up with nothing to qualify the notion, we end up with there only being metaphysics. Our terminology describes the world as physical and existent, then everything else are put on the periphery of that or completely excluded. So what is reality when we stop carving it up ~ if we say existence does not exist, in that the physical/material are incorrect attributes, that reality is empty.

    What is physical, can you name a single thing which is physical?

    The ontological principle of infinite transmigration A;
    This theory is a little like taking a rabbit out of a hat except in a sense we are doing it for real. For example with my thought experiment, ‘would an exact replica of you be ‘you’?’ I came to the conclusion that…
    Principle; ‘You can take the whole part and particulars of a thing, then its duplication leaves the whole part of the thing remaining’ which is very similar to the Hindu principle of infinite expansion below*. This remembering that the Hindu philosophy derives from the notion of godhead, where and infinite amount of souls/persons may be begat from the one, and the one contains an infinite amount of souls/persons. I would go further and state that all holistic entities of things, all ‘archetypes’ and other features of everything [planets, stars, trees, animals, universes ect] are contained in a single yet infinite expression. The holistic entities of things are then as real as any other.

    It seams apparent that reality fundamentally works very differently or indeed in the opposite way to how it often works in physics ~ we cannot take an object from another object and have the primary object remaining. However when we break things down beyond the physical expressions then there becomes a whole different set of rules to the game. We can then begin to describe how you can indeed get a rabbit out of the hat or an universe from nothing.

    Life and death do not exist, in reality we are simply drawing infinities from infinity and from one location within that to another, even though essentially locations are relative and don’t exist as such ~ only the comparatives and relationships change.

    The ontological principle of infinite transmigration B;
    What makes something physical is that at a sub-atomic level the sets of relationships acting upon energy and working by universal principles are locked into what we call physical objects. Before we arrive at those then we have energy and principles, but I wonder what energy is when it is not formed into a particle or field, is energy itself even physical once we strip things down to their bare bones.
    So what makes something solid?
    Because we are composed of such energy patterns, if we hit something solid like concrete then to us it feels like a hard solid object. This is a sensory thing in relation to the impact of one set of patterns upon another and thence the potential damage, different patterns can change each other when they interact and to our experience of this there is a physicality. The solidity is perhaps then an holistic apparency, when we break down all our ideas about physics they are only physical in terms of their relationships with one another. At most this I think is only apparent in linear time and in the present, yet we can ask if that is relevant to the entire question concerning what the world is and is made of, once we take the question beyond those limits I think the term physics has a diminishing meaning which reduces to zero.
    So what is the theory to the principle;
    I will begin with the idea of an ‘infinite integer‘, I visualise this as a circle containing infinite potential or even an actual set of infinities…

    The Isha Upanishad of the Yajurveda (c. 4th to 3rd century BC) states that "if you remove a part from infinity or add a part to infinity, still what remains is infinity". [note; this actually goes back to the 8th C BC]

    Pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam (That is full, this is full)
    pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate (From the full, the full is subtracted)
    pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya (When the full is taken from the full)
    pūrṇam evāvasiṣyate (The full still will remain.) - Isha Upanishad

    So essentially the principles are;

    The principle of infinite expansion *‘you can extract an infinity from an infinity an have an infinity remaining’, or equally ‘you can take any part of an infinity {where in this case a ‘part’ of an infinity is also an infinity}, and continue to add infinities’.

    Before we can arrive at the energy patterns we have to deal with the non physical. With the above principles we can make an endless amount of infinities but they are not in any way physical, this because that which distinguishes one from a given other are liminal [in-between] rather than cardinal distinctions. We are after all concerning ourselves with an emptiness.
    We now need to get from sets of infinities to a limited amount of energy patterns, firstly we may have an infinite amount of infinities within the single circle as potentiality, however once we begin an actual process of dividing one infinity from another then other attributes are affixed to the process. I theorise that there has to be something which distinguishes one emptiness from another, and as we know/presume that the ‘universal principle of balance and polarity’ is acting in all atomic and sub-atomic particles, then why not jump to the idea that indeed this principle refers to the simplest set of operations which can be attributed to a given to a thing.

    Essentially then you pull infinities from infinity where one liminal distinction is positive, another negative and the other neutral, and this must occur in a three-fold manner or in other words, at once. Now that we have this operation in progress we may expand it across the universe [singularity] and across ‘all-time’ [as the given set of used potentiality ~ there may be an all-time in each cycle of the universe for example], yet one process is three-fold and the other potentially unlimited, and this I feel is where we begin to find limits. The next stage is that you have these three elements [+/-] and in a composite there would then be the same process applied again and you get duplication thence six polar aspects which are the six kinds of quarks in a nucleus. This continues to be expressed becoming the periodic table of elements, and here we find another limit, when particles become too heavy they become radioactive and unstable. My physics in not very good at all so forgive my ‘shotgun philosophy’, but going on intuition I feel there is also a similar limit to the universal expression of all this …and also in all-time, and that is why energy becomes conserved. Here we can begin to understand how limits are eventually arrived at even given infinite potentiality and expression, and how energy can appear to have ‘solidity’ accordingly, …however it is all an illusion.

    that’s as far as I have got with this theory so far…

    -----------

    Ok lets have some fun with the infinite transmigration thing;

    Most of you will have read of or seen on TV about the out-of-body experiments, where for example you connect someone’s eyes to someone else’s [via cams] and they see the world from that perspective and this makes them feel out of body. Now imagine a brain in a vat, but horrifically you take the brain from a foetus as soon as it begins to develop [or from stem cells], then you remove the brain from an adult, then you connect the foetus brain to the adult body; would it not think it is that person ~ especially given no other input?

    Now supplant brain for mind [considering that mind is the subject rather than brain], is it not so that our connection with the physical form is equally spatial?

    Now add that everything has an infinity to it, the particles that compose you and the holistic entity of your mind. [You make a copy of your human form and duplicate it leaving yourself remaining etc] essentially we are taking an infinity and from it producing another infinity, with unmade things we can perform this task as much as we like.

    So reality is all about spatial entities and locations then that ultimately both are transferable.

    or can you define a single thing that is physical, absolute and has edges/boundaries/divisions that are actual?

    .
    Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.

  2. #2

    Default Re: The ontological principle of infinite transmigration! [...and do 'physics' exist].

    Lolwut?

  3. #3

    Default Re: The ontological principle of infinite transmigration! [...and do 'physics' exist].

    I'll have to give a tribute to the OP. This is really beyond me, but I'm not surprised again at the use of Hindu cosmology - basically, it is a fertile source of the most patent anti-materialism ever produced by man, contrarily to all Western Science and all Western notions.

    Even though I cannot fathom your premises, your conclusion is sound. The "solidity" of matter is an illusion, and matter itself is a shaky notion, although not completely "unreal". Yes, I believe this is the traditional interpretation.
    Last edited by Marie Louise von Preussen; December 20, 2010 at 11:38 PM.
    "Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."

    - Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)

  4. #4

    Default Re: The ontological principle of infinite transmigration! [...and do 'physics' exist].

    Thanks Louis XI glad some people around here can understand it. [I have had a few pm's on the matter, so thankfully we are not the only ones ].


    Well it bounces off some of my previous ideas and I though Buddhists and hindus would understand some of it. Apart from the lack of ‘solidity’ ~ which as you say doesn’t make physics any less ‘real’, this goes by a near universal sensibility amongst indo-Europeans, this is why the druidic concept of transmigration fits in so perfectly with the hindu one. In the simplest sense it was believed that a ‘soul’ - if you will, could move from body to body, so I brought the idea up to date with modern experiments [in the last section of the op under the line].

    essentially reality is all about spatial entities and locations/bodies where both are transferable. The physical side of things of course cannot be transmigrated, it is the non material which inhabits them which can move around although some of them too are locked in the material or patterns of energy. The interesting thing for me is how you can create endlessly and effortlessly in this way, in fact you actually have to find a way to stop creation rather than start it.

    Perhaps we could imagine the circle and inside that an infinity - as a sphere, then that each infinity within that is also a circle/sphere and inside that an infinity….etc. each infinity has potential and when you draw one from the other something distinguishes the two emptiness’s, this is where principles come into it like the universal of balance and polarity where one infinity would be the polar opposite of the other. Having said that it doesn’t have to be physics [if we can call polarities that] which creates a differentiated infinity, as per the example of a duplicated form e.g. you and a copied you where you still exist, or a germ divides and another exists ~ there must be the equivalent of the physical form going on in the metaphysical realm of things [as these are more subtle]. Thus you get the operation of infinities being drawn from an infinity in any instance where it is called for, it works on all levels from the most subtle to the most macroscopic and holistic in an indifferent manner ~ because everything is sizeless as compared to an infinity.

    hmm it seams to get more complicated the more I try to explain it and that wont do, so as this is my first draft on the idea I will think about it and try to come up with some images explaining the formula.
    Formerly quetzalcoatl. Proud leader of STW3 and member of the RTR, FATW and QNS teams.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •