nothing is omnipresent

[Amorphos]

nothing is omnipresent

on a tangent to ideas put forwards in the karma thread, i thought these ideas needed to be said.

omnipresence is a given, all things are present. that something is or has omnipresence contradicts this!

can we have something that is omnipresence other than omnipresence itself? in order to do so we must extrapolate ‘x’ presence from omnipresence ~ let us imagine a circle within which are all presences, to make a given thing have the quality of omnipresence we must take it outside of that circle, which is an impossible conclusion to draw.

the same applies to omnipotence; to have anything of any description that has potency over anything within our circle, we have to first take from within that. considering that all potencies are within the circle this to is impossible.
if were were to do so then we have two instances of ‘x’ being ‘x’, of presence or potency being itself when it already is itself.

fig 1

p = property

omniscience
to have all knowledge we must first be in a position where all knowledge is present. to arrive there time must have ended and no more events may ever occur, as each new event would represent a new item of knowledge.

the only exception to the rule is where all possible items of knowledge are understood in a predetermined fashion. for example we may understand something we don’t know by adding together other items of knowledge that we do know. this is only an estimation of the unknown knowledgeable item and can never be absolute knowledge of that even if the information provided by the deduction is correct.

an unknown item of knowledge must always have a ‘strange’ aspect, no two instances can be exactly the same, all things hold their own positions relative to one another and cannot occupy the same space.

infinite historical accuracy; the above would not be true if we were beyond time looking back upon the history of knowledgeable items. or if we were looking down - so to say, upon all-time and all events and hence all knowledge.

as we have discussed before; there is no exact knowledge, so there is never absolute knowledge of all things even if we could view existence from an extraneous/infinite perspective.
secondly there are hidden knowledgeable items, in our primary formula (fig 1) we note that P cannot = p, hence there cannot be a position of the onlooker which is outside of the omni-perspectile view. infinity would not be outside of the circle and no observation from point x may observe itself nor other obscured entities.

note. nothing is also within the circle, there can be nothing outside of it. then that there is nothing between all things within the circle and hence all ‘p’s are connected as there is nothing to separate them except self imposed definitions and limits.

[Ummon]

All points in space may effectively be the same point in space.

[eventhorizen]

True time is 4 dimensional.

-Martin Heidegger.

[Kiljaden]

True time is 4 dimensional.

-Martin Heidegger.

While I do enjoy Heidegger's Philosophy - it's just that, Philosophy. Time and Space are the same thing.

Time is a concept created by humans to quantify the movement and changes in matter and energy around them. To non-sentient beings, time does not exist. All that exists is a giant swirling (simply put) of energy and matter.

Time is cyclical, not linear. Knowable time is based on the Earth's movements relative to the Sun, and always in cycles. We can say linearly that so many cycles of time have passed, but really this is yet another step until the cycle of 2,150 years of the precession of the equinoxes, which is yet another step until the galactic 25,800 year cycle. All of these being relative to the Earth.

To the OP, Nothing (no thing) is omnipresent, yet everything (every thing) is omnipresent. That should answer your question simply enough.

Need more? Obviously if we account for every thing in the universe: matter, energy, dark energy, things yet undiscovered, we find that everywhere there is something. Nothing does not exist. No thing does not exist. [Every Thing] as one thing, is omnipresent.

If you choose to be Pantheist and call [Every Thing] God, so be it - God is omnipresent. If you choose to extrapolate [Every Thing] (God) outside of the physical realm and give it creation powers (as an extra-planar Deist God without creation powers is a moot and worthless God), all you have done is say that everything created everything, which is strange logic, and unnecessarily redundant.

[portugal11]

what do u mean time being cyclical?, everything is going to repeat somehow?

[PointOfViewGun]

I thought even quantum physics states that existence is one of the possibilities of many. Any object can be at any certain point in the universe at any time but it is in it's most probably position.

If we're applying the idea to God, it's completely pointless anyway.

[Amorphos]

All points in space may effectively be the same point in space.

they begin as such [big bang - singularity] so yes indeed they may be, although they are not in actuality ~ all points are at their relative positions that the universe is as it is.

this doesn’t matter to the equation though as we still have to go outside of the circle to have a given ‘x’ [be it god or not] that is/posesses the quality of omnipresence. it seams simple enough to me that omnipresence is itself and nothing else!

I thought even quantum physics states that existence is one of the possibilities of many. Any object can be at any certain point in the universe at any time but it is in it’s most probably position.

they can but they ultimately don’t, or at least in most cases i would think. otherwise there would be a random set of quantum states with no fixed abode - so to say.

If we’re applying the idea to God, it’s completely pointless anyway.

why? god would have to hold one of two positions, within the circle ~ existent, or outside the circle and non existent/non-present. further that the outside must be qualityless, it cannot have the position of omnipresence or anything else.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well we believe that he's way too much powerful right? So God can do or be or have anything it wants. It's kind of an entity that falls out of every definition.

[Chaigidel]

I think we are coming pretty close to the proper edge of that definition, we at least properly see a corner of It.

[Amorphos]

TDLS & chai

Well we believe that he’s way too much powerful right? So God can do or be or have anything it wants. It’s kind of an entity that falls out of every definition.

sure. it can fall out of definition but then how can it be given definition. the point is that even with infinite power you cannot go outside the circle and have dominion over reality, this is because reality is entire, everything exists within that circle [even eternities and infinities], the line of the circle is only present to show the status of the formula.

there is a different idea of god we can have; that which was described loosely by fishy in the karma thread as ‘the dwelling place’. this i like as it is not an interfering so and so, it is just there it has no presence nor definition and quality. i would think that this is very much the nature of reality as the whole.

[PointOfViewGun]

TDLS & chai

sure. it can fall out of definition but then how can it be given definition. the point is that even with infinite power you cannot go outside the circle and have dominion over reality, this is because reality is entire, everything exists within that circle [even eternities and infinities], the line of the circle is only present to show the status of the formula.

there is a different idea of god we can have; that which was described loosely by fishy in the karma thread as ‘the dwelling place’. this i like as it is not an interfering so and so, it is just there it has no presence nor definition and quality. i would think that this is very much the nature of reality as the whole.

Think of it as the universe. For us, there is nothing outside of universe. The borders are the limit of everything. We define things that fall inside of that universe. We say that gravity is the force pulls you towards a large chunk of mass but we have no knowledge or experience of how it is outside of our universe. It can be the other way around but the point is that we can't define something that falls out of the borders of our reality and perception.

[Theseus1234]

it is hard to imagine things we are not

[Amorphos]

the point is that we can’t define something that falls out of the borders of our reality and perception.

true, however we can define universal principles that apply to absolutely anything. even if we made up an imaginary universe with differing condition etc, it would still go by rules ~ it would just use them differently.

apart from that we are talking about this universe. so it does to some degree at least fall into that category.

it is hard to imagine things we are not

the principle remains, anything either goes by it or not, if it does not then it isn’t a universal entity, nor an infinite one and hence the only kind of god that doesn’t go by it would be one that is outside of our normal definitions and thence not omnipresent.

having said all of that, we can find an exception in that something could be everywhere yet not specifically present ~ i expect this is how many people visualise omnipresence anyway.

[PointOfViewGun]

true, however we can define universal principles that apply to absolutely anything. even if we made up an imaginary universe with differing condition etc, it would still go by rules ~ it would just use them differently.

apart from that we are talking about this universe. so it does to some degree at least fall into that category.

But we accept God as the top of the pyramid. There is nothing more than it. It doesn't matter how we define it. God could create a universe where gravity acts the other way and we'd accept as a universal principle. We're talking about an entity that makes the rules that we're talking about. They don't really apply to God.

[Valentin the II]

I think what quetz is trying to say is, it doesnt matter how powerfull god is.
Sins by the rulles of this universe he cant be omnipresent, he is not.
No matter how powerfull you are, you cant go against the rulles.

[Amorphos]

But we accept God as the top of the pyramid. There is nothing more than it. It doesn’t matter how we define it. God could create a universe where gravity acts the other way and we’d accept as a universal principle. We’re talking about an entity that makes the rules that we’re talking about. They don’t really apply to God.

do we accept that? firstly it is not pyramidical it is universal. if god is a creator then we must have a beginning which there is not. if we begin with nothing then a) what is ‘god’ in that nothing then, b) you have an infinity of nothing intersected by a finite amount of something, which is impossible as infinity has no limits from whence to begin anything ~ no edge nor line to begin a process.

the rules make themselves even if god exists, you create 1 then 2 must follow, in the end you have the universe as a set of evolutions [in the wider sense of the term] where one thing follows another and all work by universal principles ~ god or no god the result is the same.

I think what quetz is trying to say is, it doesn’t matter how powerful god is.
Sins by the rules of this universe he cant be omnipresent, he is not.
No matter how powerful you are, you cant go against the rules.

exactly! i would go further and say that you cannot have a ‘rulemaker’ but that will be a whole different thread topic. [i am working on it lols]

[Code_Knight]

nothing is omnipresent

on a tangent to ideas put forwards in the karma thread, i thought these ideas needed to be said.

omnipresence is a given, all things are present. that something is or has omnipresence contradicts this!

can we have something that is omnipresence other than omnipresence itself? in order to do so we must extrapolate ‘x’ presence from omnipresence ~ let us imagine a circle within which are all presences, to make a given thing have the quality of omnipresence we must take it outside of that circle, which is an impossible conclusion to draw.

the same applies to omnipotence; to have anything of any description that has potency over anything within our circle, we have to first take from within that. considering that all potencies are within the circle this to is impossible.
if were were to do so then we have two instances of ‘x’ being ‘x’, of presence or potency being itself when it already is itself.

fig 1


omniscience
to have all knowledge we must first be in a position where all knowledge is present. to arrive there time must have ended and no more events may ever occur, as each new event would represent a new item of knowledge.

the only exception to the rule is where all possible items of knowledge are understood in a predetermined fashion. for example we may understand something we don’t know by adding together other items of knowledge that we do know. this is only an estimation of the unknown knowledgeable item and can never be absolute knowledge of that even if the information provided by the deduction is correct.

an unknown item of knowledge must always have a ‘strange’ aspect, no two instances can be exactly the same, all things hold their own positions relative to one another and cannot occupy the same space.

infinite historical accuracy; the above would not be true if we were beyond time looking back upon the history of knowledgeable items. or if we were looking down - so to say, upon all-time and all events and hence all knowledge.

as we have discussed before; there is no exact knowledge, so there is never absolute knowledge of all things even if we could view existence from an extraneous/infinite perspective.
secondly there are hidden knowledgeable items, in our primary formula (fig 1) we note that P cannot = p, hence there cannot be a position of the onlooker which is outside of the omni-perspectile view. infinity would not be outside of the circle and no observation from point x may observe itself nor other obscured entities.

note. nothing is also within the circle, there can be nothing outside of it. then that there is nothing between all things within the circle and hence all ‘p’s are connected as there is nothing to separate them except self imposed definitions and limits.

This is a very impressive amount of work, but God is not part of this universe, therefore you cannot bind him by these laws. An example is like, a guy makes a bowl of Jello with particles in the middle of it, the particles will move and the Jello will shake, but nothing happens to the guy.

[portugal11]

a diffrent dimensional creature could be omnipresent

[Amorphos]

a different dimensional creature could be omnipresent

how? how can a dimension exist outside of existence? if it did then how would it be omnipresent at the same time?

nice try

[portugal11]

not to great at phsyics but say if there was a 4th or 5th dimensional being then couldnt it be at anytime, therefore having knowledge at the end of the universe or w/e