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?