Mu_

@Synchronicity likewise there is no inside of your body, there is just a body, and you define the head as on top and the feet at the bottom but it’s one connected unit with no inside or outside of it. It’s only through language and terminology that you’ve sectioned it into pieces and feel it in pieces.

But the inside is all connected like a solid ball. If your just a solid ball with no outside, there is no inside the ball 🏀 it’s just ball ball ball ball. likewise. There is no objective front of a tree. And no top of a lake. These require other separate things and definitions to create.

What would it be inside to if it’s the only one event, your looking at it as though it’s a human inside the space looking around so there is an inside, but the whole thing itself. There is no outside it or inside it, just IT. This is a none measurable event.

@Synchronicity also in a finite uncaised reality there would be no outside of it and no inside of it, it would be a unified unseperable self contained self knowing self defining phenomenon. It would only be able to measure itself by creating its own imposed separation to say this is a length and this is a space. Same would go with supposed time , it would define what constitutes a thing called time or not.

@Synchronicity ya I don’t know what to say. There’s always “something”. There is no possibility for nothing. If there was ever nothing, there would never be anything again, for there would be no way for something to exist. to say reality could just happen when there is absolutely nothing at all is illogical. so the fact there is @something” means it could not come from something else for if it did it would be connected and this the same thing.

I’m not sure if we need to prove time but your theory depends on it since your saying time which hasn’t been qualified yet can extend for a length and stop in this uncaused finite reality. in fact this theory depends on time being real in it to be a grounds for the disproval of the other proof I started with. And yet you or I don’t know what time is to begin with. Your now saying you could theorize ways in which time could be to work in this fictitious idea when you or I don’t know what any of it is to begin with or if it’s even real to start. Leo is right, logic’ can come up with all sorts of ways to believe something.

Who would be tracking this start and end to even call it that. Who or what is saying there is time in this theory. Time is just a theory at this point and this theory your presenting is saying a thing called time which hasn’t been proven yet is in it. it kinda feels like a theory that insists on 4 dimensional triangles need to be disproved before we can accept oneness.

@Synchronicity is this theory also implying this type of reality could end, and then begin again with no connection or cause to the previous one? And in that space where one begins and the other ends, there isn’t “nothing” happening in that transition. lol

@Synchronicity @Synchronicity I mean it’s interesting, but who or what is determining time in this theory. if it is truely just a self contained event that starts with no cause, it is One and only it could determine if there is time or not, humans have no domain in this subject. This self contained world could grow things that are extensions of it/it’s starting point who may make up concepts about itself and talk about things called time and call it seconds or blips but again it’s a self contained one event. So that’s a whole other bag of worms.

So there is nothing prior to it but it started? And start does not imply it came into existence, it’s when exaistance and time began, and there is nothing prior to outside of it. Who’s determining time in this world?

So it started from nothing or it was always there?

So it started 1 trillion years ago, so did the unplaced stuff start then as well?

No not at all I’m open to this debate but now wonder if you truely are. I’m just asking you a question. Because I want to understand. When does time start in your proposed possibility.

But I feel like your being illogical and unable to concisely mean something real. Like a 4 sided triangle. when does the start start, if the unplaced objects are never placed.

So your saying time starts at what point then, when the unplaced finite objects start existing? But again your saying they don’t start they are unplaced. So when does time start in this theoretical idea then?

Now I don’t know the difference between your idea of eternal and this Hawkins thing. For me eternal doesn’t mean an infinite chain behind it, it’s just there as the only thing, no before, no after. your saying pretty much the same thing no? But a starting point is the result with afterwards? if so I’d ask what do you mean start and after. It’s self contained going-onness no? There’s no time in this, it’s just itself happening

What do you mean a starting point without placed content. Your saying eternal has no starting point per its definition and Hawkins is saying unplaced content but a starting point as in time starts? stars when is the first thought that comes to mind, when the content ther wasn’t placed was placed??? But it doesn’t have a moment when it was so it’s always been there. Something’s not adding up.

Just to clarify I don’t generally use the word infinite to prove infinity, but rather to prove eternal. Leo’s about infinity. Ok so why eternal. Well according your own premise it’s the only finite whatever thing or energy. It didn’t come into being from something, it always existed/existing? I’m not sure how that is not eternal. Where would something go in a supposed death, there’s no where else to exist according to this finite thing being the only place. there would also be no time since nothing has a starting point, it’s always been. And there for now is this moment, and always this moment, sure there may be mind experiences of change and body aging experience of change but, the reality is there is no actual ticking time.

The debunk I believe solves both of these and a number of Indian spiritual traditions have grappled with this, including Alan watts as well which highly informed some of my thinking and eventual realizations directly. Also Leo tackled this in one of his proofs as well. Howeber I’m still not 100% I know exactly what you mean so if I’m off in these ideas of yours let me know. if you have physical things you call different from another, there’s this notion of space or something or mind separating them. For now let’s leave mind out of it, but if it’s space separating them, then you’d have to acknowledge that it’s possible that it’s space that connects them actually creating or originally being a single object:thing . The idea hawkenings mentioned while clever still leaves out the fact that this is either contained in something or it itself is the container and if it is the only existing container, it is One and everything in it is IT and all space they supposedly separates things in IT, is connected and is ALL IT. also this self enveloped whatchamacallit would also be eternal since it never started or has anywhere to disappear or die to. Also time would be seen as a illusion in this understanding as well since what reality fundamentally is would have no starting point for time to start and thus continue, it would always be this moment in which reality is always since it’s always been and remains.

But what do you mean by a finite physical reality? a set number of things, with boarders? If so that’s easily debunked.

@Leo Gura @Synchronicity If you have the time, Tell me what you guys think of my proof. I’ve made a few videos a number of years ago on the proof and taught this to a few people as well. it’s a proof for eternity and is oddly similar to Leo’s video and is one reason I brought up some objections. the first part of the proof is experience proves existence, it basically counters ideas that all this could be fundamentally illusion or nothing. True nothings would mean no experience would exist, and experiencing proves absolute nothing could not be true. the next part is basically opening the question, if there is “something” in which having experience proves is there, could it come from somewhere else. If you believe yes, then you have to ask could that come from somewhere else, eventually either encountering a never ending chain of possible starting points or you accept it could not like Leo pointed out in one of his proofs, if it’s a infinite regress, then that is a infinity or as I would call it eternal, it’s forever with no beginning, and I’d argue if you believe this infinite regress idea you’d have to acknowledge this would be happening in “something” eternal, because the regress would need a container to happen in. The last part of the proof is if eternal or infinite regress is true then what would be the case right now with what appears to be you and I. It would have to be you and I and anything else appearing, It couldn’t be anything other. there is nothing that is not one’s self.

How is this any different than understanding your everything everywhere, it almost sounds like just a new word applied to a realization that has been spoken about since the Bhagavad Gita, or in unique ways through many cultures who had realizations to God is everything and everywhere, or not two, or indivisible, the list goes on an on..... I guess thats my point, just kinda going with the flow with this stream of conversation.....

Ok, but it seems like all that can be understood without this added term called infinity. And if it just adds infinity, which honestly is still super unclear, which is more of itself then what does that even mean experientially. I mean awakening to love vs not love is missing something profound and would reflect in one’s character, but what about infinity.

So as someone who feels like they understand this thing called infinity as opposed to just god with no other, forever, always now and has always ever been, no outside or inside. what does understanding this infinity add to the picture in your experience as opposed to before deeply understanding this. curious.

Just wrong? I’m fine with that but was hoping for a fun discussion. Anyways I agree god is forever with no outsides or insides but infinite? <shrug>