The dial

[Amorphos]

The dial

hello chaps, thought i'd pop my head up again

So I got this dial, its just a metaphor, but what it means is not a metaphor. Consider it to be as like gnosis compared to knowledge; man come tell you his loved one has died, you then have the informational knowledge of that. It happens to you, and now you know what it means [gnosis].

So I plug my dial into time, turn it to the rate of current progress ~ whatever that means, and I observe that that rate manifests nature and the elements in the respective formats [relative to that rate]. thing is, even though there appears to be nothing to determine what the rate of progress is, or what ‘now’ incurs, we know that heat is agitation. If you make particles more agitated they will get hotter, and so you cannot turn the rate of time’s progression up, the same way as relativistic time bends across all-time.

The box
There exists and empty box with no sides, and all the particles in the universe jump into the box, and then jump back out of the box. The progression is the manifest ‘direction’ of succession [the jump happening over, and over].

So you have relativistic time on the dial, and also a manifest rate of change on a different dial coming off at a tangent from the jump. We could turn the relativity dial until e.g.rocks become fluid; if we visualize a slab of jade [or google it], one can note how it looks like something fluid has been frozen in time. So now turn that dial as far as the speed of the fastest things and keep turning. What do we get ~ an empty box.

Turn the rate of manifest time full round, and watch time make things go brown, then black ~ like burning, until the whole thing goes nuclear and beyond ..? I’d imagine that we’d also end up with an empty box.

Same thing with perspective of course, if you get to more views than there are photons in a scene, then light would disappear and so the fully painted picture reveals the empty canvas. …an empty box again.

Thing is; all the time we have been doing all this with nature and reality ~ turning it into and empty box with no sides. This sounds familiar to my ‘cosmic blender theory’ whereby if you blend the whole of reality into one, you end up with an emptiness.

Conclusioni per sapientiam. Something which is everything must include everything. The highest form of manifest existence, is at least human, and the highest form of being the oneness is also at least human. Is God.

ps, if anyone can suggest something higher_? my feelings are that God is as real as the physicality he manifests, both he and it are the same: natura est.




_

[Sar1n]

...are we talking about Spinosa's pantheism here?

[Amorphos]

no not really, i tried to be as direct as possible with the conundrum, by that i mean, not involving other philosophers shizzle [i don't read it much anyhow]. somehow we have to get from an infinite emptiness to physical reality ~ from nothing to something. doing that yields the fact that nature can do that, ergo it has a 'dial' or something which the metaphor refers to.

[basics]

no not really, i tried to be as direct as possible with the conundrum, by that i mean, not involving other philosophers shizzle [i don't read it much anyhow]. somehow we have to get from an infinite emptiness to physical reality ~ from nothing to something. doing that yields the fact that nature can do that, ergo it has a 'dial' or something which the metaphor refers to.

Amorphos,

How does nature or anything else get from nothing to something?

[conon394]

The highest form of manifest existence, is at least human, and the highest form of being the oneness is also at least human.

Both of those are ether unproven or subjective assertions but not provable fact.

[Diocle]

The dial

hello chaps, thought i'd pop my head up again

So I got this dial, its just a metaphor, but what it means is not a metaphor. Consider it to be as like gnosis compared to knowledge; man come tell you his loved one has died, you then have the informational knowledge of that. It happens to you, and now you know what it means [gnosis].

..

No, it's not 'gnosis', it's something commonly known as 'experience'.

[Amorphos]

Basics, everyone, hi
How does nature or anything else get from nothing to something?

‘The cosmic blender’

Take everything, stick it in a bucket and blend. Keep going until you have blended even the atomic structures, then everything else until you get to the primary particles. The act of disconnecting all structures, will mean that there are no atomic bonds and the whole physical universe would disappear. This is roughly what occurs in every quantum refresh of universe ~ hence the empty box metaphor. the only difference is that all particles are relativistic and hence phase in and out of manifest existence in the particular.


Canon384
Both of those are ether unproven or subjective assertions but not provable fact.

[- The highest form of manifest existence, is at least human]


See above, then imagine roughly what >everything< as one would be like. We don’t need to be accurate to realise that ‘all you are’ + ‘more’, is more than human. Having said that, I do believe that to be God is to be human, simply because if you could choose anything, that would be how you would want to be. I can imagine all manner of augmentations, a brain the size of a planet and what have you, but larger brains are more cumbersome ~ as the connections are longer.

You have to go through the complex in order to arrive at the simple and succinct - life message. To be human is what that is, and without all the distractions augmentations would yield. God can of course do anything with his mind, but so can we - both with what they got in the world they are in.


Diocle
No, it's not 'gnosis', it's something commonly known as 'experience'.

This is true, but can you not attain gnosis without experience? Ergo not all experience is gnosis and vice versa. Secondly the experience of gnosis is not what the gnosis itself is. If a learned antiques restorer ‘knows’ in an instance what to do to correct a flaw, that knowledge in the heart ~ so to say, is not an experience.

- its more like an engine - the gnosis engine I call it. One day you will Gnow what this means lol

[basics]

Amorphos,

How can nothing become primary particles if there was nothing to begin with? For example how did water come into existence because as advanced as man is he has never been able to make it out of nothing which if he could would solve many problems this world faces?

[Amorphos]

there wasn't nothing, but instead of that there was one thing ~ the whole blended into one. that would still be empty, but not nothing. now add infinite sets and imagine the reverse of all then being blended, and you arrive at manifest existence.

[AqD]

Amorphos,

How does nature or anything else get from nothing to something?

How did your God come into existence?

[The spartan]

there wasn't nothing, but instead of that there was one thing ~ the whole blended into one. that would still be empty, but not nothing. now add infinite sets and imagine the reverse of all then being blended, and you arrive at manifest existence.

I always thought there was a certain amount of egotism involved in the question: "How could the universe begin with nothing?". It is like there is a presumption that time and space (and physics at large) were the same during the Big Bang. Really, the paradigm of such questions don't work; "from nothing" doesn't mean anything, nor does "universe begin" in this case. But I guess if I can't fit the formation of the universe into a nice Mythos-shaped box, it didn't actually happen that way.

[basics]

How did your God come into existence?

AqD,

God has always been because He has no beginning nor end. However if you take Jesus Christ and His advent into the world as a man, He portrayed a beginning yet no end as He still lives as He has always done being part of the Godhead. That is why He had Moses write down the words for the sake of man, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Before that there was nothing of us or our creation. He made everything according to its kind thus killing off the idea of a great melting pot. of course if one could prove there was a big bang or a melting pot then one has an argument to make but as science is discovering regularly that is all nonsense.