If there is only one thing which exists…

[Amorphos]

If there is only one thing which exists…

The implausibility of duality;

If you take any two things you must create a third as the divisional element e.g. two points must belong to a space, an object within another object must have something which denotes its separateness to the other. You cannot create something [the third aspect] because it needs to be there in hindsight to what you already have, thus a division cannot be formed.
Whatever a division is made of or otherwise is, it must be part of a given other even if not directly to that which it divides. E.g. like if two rooms were divided by a wall, we could say that the contents of the rooms are not part of the contents of the wall.
principle; Distinction is what relates one thing to another, thus you cannot have a distinction without there being a relationship.

The result if true;

There can be no objects other than a single object, a single object cannot be defined, thus there are no objects.

Nothing can end nor begin, as there is only one non-object thingness. All somethings belong to that single space/entity/thingness, if something appears to end it must be transmigrating to an unseen area.

All things, dimensions, consciousnesses etc, [add any other] must be part of a multifaceted entity.

There are only two things which exist; the singular and universal thingness ~ the non object which composes existence, and relationships between one area of that and another.

Within the latter there may exist kinds of relationships, information is one such way in which a thing can relate to another thing and is required where there is more than a single step between relating objects. Where there is only a single step for a relationship to form, no information is required, the singularity of the thingness means that direct contact from one area to another yields exact communication.

------------some ideas from this--------------

There can be no god unless the description of that god is exactly the same as any description of the singularity* as redefined above [*maybe unilarity is better? wholarity is hilarious ]. oh dear did i mention god

Consciousness as any other element of the oneness, is not divided. Things ~ all things only appear to be divided, our minds are the same only localised. If the locating aspect is removed/changed then the mind as any object [thingness of the thingness] must transmigrate to an unseen area.

Love contains a singularity of thingness, and hence requires no other communication concerning what it is.

All forces are part of a single force, if there is say an expanding force, there must be an equivalent contracting force ~ even if it does not exist yet.


.

[Marechal Ney]

Perhaps I missed it, but what about infinity? Your argument is very good, but to me it seems to be suggesting that the universe (or universe-universe, with the multiverse theory now in swing) is infinite...in fact, an infinite universe seems more likely than a single entity existing (then again, perhaps the entity/singularity could be infinite; oh, how things get confusing when philosophy/religion/theoretical physics mix...).

[Amorphos]

Haha yes indeed.

Infinity I am seeing as a dimension and hence part of the multifaceted nature of it all ~ as like other dimensions.

No forgetting that the object of the thingness is indefinable;
‘There can be no objects other than a single object, a single object cannot be defined [esp. in terms of the whole], thus there are no objects‘.

I find I cannot define the infinite as a thing, nor the finite, as both infer an absolute [Spinoza territory]. Perhaps such notions can only be metaphoric as like math is.

[Diamat]

You could just call the absolute "totality". Each thing, or phenomenon, is as much the whole as the whole is the part. One is all and all is one. This is so because all things in the totality are an interrelated whole.

Your view is basically like that of Joseph Dietzgen (Marxist; contemporary of Marx), some forms of philosophical Buddhism, or Cheondogyo (Korean native religion). This is the way I think of reality as well.

[Amorphos]

I agree to a degree, and yes I have similar influences but also that of Druidry [hence the tranmigration element]. One thing I’d say is different is that my theory is ‘uncontained’ whereas ideas like totality and the absolute are ‘contained’.

[Diamat]

I agree to a degree, and yes I have similar influences but also that of Druidry [hence the tranmigration element]. One thing I’d say is different is that my theory is ‘uncontained’ whereas ideas like totality and the absolute are ‘contained’.

Yes, but when we talk of totality, we only do so for conceptualization. There is no "contained" totality here. But we need to be able to speak of it somehow. Your theory agrees with that.