RMQualtrough

Soz to hear. I'm in the UK so to hear of people being near bankrupted to receive medical care seems insane. Surely being able to actually live is the most basic human right? What sort of Darwinian nightmare is it where we just throw the sick to the wolves to die? It seems a simple step away from eugenics. Anyway. I mentioned you a few times in my thread about the impossibility of experiencing nonduality (due to your experience with cessation). I know this site doesn't notify for such things but I'd be much obliged if you could give your input on the matter. As I see it, cessation is the only direct "experience" of nonduality, though ironically it's a non-experience.

If reality doesn't contain free will is it still "absolutely infinite"?

What did you spend 100K on?

I have no issue with scientific discoveries. If this is God's dream, science is merely an exploration of God just as inner work is. But there were IMO no conscious minds at the start of this universe. So I consider either a) consciousness can exist while dormant, it is just not conscious of anything yet, and acts sort of like some form of infinite energy/potential. Or b) BOTH consciousness, time, space, etc, all came from God but none of the things are fundamentally its sole nature, just each individually one single trait of what infinity is. Someone wrote nothing is limitless. It is possible therefore it can be infinite things. So it may well be that true nothing is what all things reside in. ... In either case these are very serious proposals IMO.

Right, God isn't localized, but this particular dreamscape (our universe) is, and the eyes you said are imaginary are something localized within it. When eyes see, it is a localization. I am thinking that God can only experience this universe via imaginary eyes and imaginary bodies etc. This body or these eyes are not where God resides. It resides in nothingness. The imagination of a body and eyes is the somethingness through which experience can take place.

Amazing video: We are now as humans able to see a representation of what a cat sees. What are the implications of this to you?

This seems right. I am curious still, though, what God-You experiences when it experiences Everythingness all at once. Is it not like the thing with the dream of a beach? If you are not localized within the beach it would be impossible to see any of it. God-You is not localized but is in all localized forms. Does God-You not simply permanently reside in nothingness? Only experiencing something when the localized forms manifest. Sort of like it exists in one place (nothingness) but projects itself into the dream, the somethingness. As the dreamer never leaves the bed during the entirety of the dream, God never leaves nothingness?

Why is there something rather than nothing in your opinion? Leo said in a video that it's because there's nothing to prevent it. But there being nothing to prevent existence doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. You can put up a sign saying "walking on the grass allowed!" but it doesn't mean someone will walk on the grass. There's not much you can do with 0. But that is within the confines of the laws of reality. What is 0 outside of any laws of reality? Maybe there are infinite laws and one of those dictates that the 0 must become a something. But it doesn't answer why there is any law at all. I can also consider that given infinite possibilities, one possibility is a paradox. Like the time travel paradox where you go back in time and shoot a relative before you were conceived. I think somethingness may arise due to a paradox but what paradox exists in nothing? Perhaps that something called space and time is created, and something in that spacetime somehow creates the somethingness. Creating an infinite loop. Or perhaps we assume we are on the existent side. Perhaps existence exists inside non-existence again by some paradox? I am curious what you guys think.

@Mason Riggle I think the word possibilities kills the theory. It is better as just infinity, for the sole reason that something being possible doesn't mean it will happen. But if something is infinite it MUST be all those things or it wouldn't be infinite. Stick on nothingness is infinite IMO. I also like the term limitless and unlimited as used by you.

@Tim R Actually the solution that nothingness IS somethingness is satisfying to me. It's exactly the type of fucked up thing that can explain the illogical. We say matter appears in consciousness. In the same way, I am satisfied if somethingness appears in nothingness. I am satisfied if nothingness is the ground. If literally all things including consciousness spring forth from nothingness. I like that a lot. It seems right. The unlimited things from a hat... It seems right to me...

@Adamq8 Can't consciousness exist without being conscious of anything (and hence sort of be dormant as "nothing")? When the big bang happened what was the awareness of an atom like? An atom is fundamentally made of it, so it IS it. But it isn't displaying that property of being aware of anything. So it's dormant? I see the issue though. At that beginning I only assume nothing in the entire universe was conscious of anything else and yet here it is. I suppose matter is one of the unlimited things nothing can be too... Why can't everything just be nothing and not even consciousness. Literally everything out of that magical bag of unlimited things...

Nice one.

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. And yeah, no time so there isn't a before and after just now. So it would all happen instantly in a single moment we call now. Existence created from non-existence. But you can't create anything from something that doesn't exist yet. That is why God could not make a universe except out of itself... So existence would be made OF non-existence.

@tatsumaru Yes they are different things. If some magical genie literally told you the answers to all reality and it was proved beyond all doubt to you, you're not suddenly enlightened just because you know the truth. If I was suffering I would see a doctor and get medication tbh lmao. Cheating my brain chemistry has never bothered me morally. But I AM interested in reality. Many people are just interested in knowing more about life and reality.

@Adamq8 The thing is that sort of makes an infinite regress. Like when little kids ask "why" over and over, when someone says "why is there this consciousness?" there is no satisfactory explanation still for why there is that something. Perhaps consciousness is simply a property of nothing. It would not matter at that level if consciousness were fundamental or not because consciousness still couldn't ever not exist forever via more than one mechanism. The nature of infinity for one. Infinity might also explain the need for something. Though does infinity exist in non-existence? It gets confusing then.

@tatsumaru Enlightenment isn't important to me or a goal at all, but I was interested by: "You are contemplating the difference between existence and non-existence and how they are related to each other, that's as dual as duality gets." Is total and literal absolute nothingness dual if existence doesn't exist to be part of it?

@tatsumaru I don't think this question or premise has anything to do with duality or nonduality whatsoever. If no conventional logic or answer is plausible for the question, then perhaps it is something crazy. Lol. Can existence be non-existent? That's impossible? But in nothingness there's no such thing as impossibility or logic... So it's just absolutely topsy turvy. All things all at once because there is neither logic nor impossibility. Consider all the wild things that could be when there are zero logical laws. Cause causes effect? That's logical. How about effect causing cause? How about nothing being something. Existence being non-existent. A possibility branch of a thing which loops back and creates the nothing. Non-existence REQUIRING existence. Maybe a person says paradoxes don't exist. Non-existence doesn't exist either so they're on the same plane and can gladly interact.

Yeah so we're all living, experiencing, and playing around in very literal non-existence? LOL that is hilarious and wild if true. The idea that existence itself literally does not exist. The entire thing sustained by nothing more than a paradox. Lmao.

How about a time paradox? Like how you can't travel back in time and kill an ancestor... When there is literally nothing there are infinite things that could have been but aren't. Perhaps one of those possible things loops back somehow and creates the nothing, and therefore the nothing can only then exist with that something that creates it. So literally like the time travel paradox... Existence existing by virtue of the fact that non-existence is created by an existence.

Absolute literal nothing is a concept. If hypothetically there was literal nothing, there would exist a possible "concept" of literal nothing. A concept is thought. The something from nothing is thought? Just throwing things out.

From another thread, I was pleased with this: "Perhaps everything IS nothing. Maybe there ISN'T a something outside of nothing. Maybe nothing IS everythingness. Maybe that's what nothingness literally is, infinity. Not even infinite consciousness (although that would be part of it), just infinite potentiality or something. Though I fear infinite potentiality might be wrong too, maybe that too is just part of it. Perhaps it is LITERALLY nothing and this is some utterly insane paradoxical thing... The paradox being that Nothingness IS Somethingness. Such insane paradoxical answers satisfy me the most because of the oddity of the fact of existence itself even being a thing to begin with. I don't think it could exist via normal logic." ... What do you think? Something being literal nothing (literally nothing at all) seems illogical, but if nothing exists neither does logic so that might not matter.

Total cessation of God with zero experience ever could not be possible, because of the nature of infinity. If something can exist it will and evidently experience can exist. Because of the nature of time, that also means that experience is always happening now because the passage of time is an illusion. So although inside spacetime we could cease to be localized beings, that cessation is reliant upon time. From outside time, eternity is a block (or point). So the experience you are having right now is permanent, eternal, and imprinted into that block of infinite time. It is always being experienced... The book is already written you are just flicking through the pages... The big bang happend and at that moment where was the observer? Are atoms able to observe anything? Perhaps consciousness is more useful as a moniker because it can lie dormant. I read before Sir Roger Penrose say that for a photon of light in a vacuum, it would subjectively experience infinite time immediately. Which sounds a lot like cessation (there is no experience of passed time just like two parts of a movie reel pasted together). They are made of what we are calling consciousness but experientially they are dormant in "cessation". That might be of some importance. Perhaps it is not so much that the thing can be dormant or cease to be, but it can be set up in such a way that experience cannot happen because there is no appearance of duality. There is no experience of no-experience just a time gap. In that time gap, the substance itself, perhaps that has gone nowhere. There is just a gap because there is nothing to experience. Perhaps to contradict millenia of spiritual teachings, the fundamental nature of reality isn't consciousness it is GOD. And consciousness is simply the property OF God. That God nothingness can exist when experience ceases, because it is the ground below consciousness. God being simply the most apt term, lest I call it literally "__". The question of "why is there something rather than nothing" is very enduring. Perhaps everything IS nothing. Maybe there ISN'T a something outside of nothing. Maybe nothing IS everythingness. Maybe that's what nothingness literally is, infinity. Not even infinite consciousness (although that would be part of it), just infinite potentiality or something. Though I fear infinite potentiality might be wrong too, maybe that too is just part of it. Perhaps it is LITERALLY nothing and this is some utterly insane paradoxical thing... The paradox being that Nothingness IS Somethingness. Such insane paradoxical answers satisfy me the most because of the oddity of the fact of existence itself even being a thing to begin with. I don't think it could exist via normal logic.

@4201 Outside of time, how could there be a beginning or end? Or a past or future? If there's no beginning and no end then how "long" does it exist if not forever?

Thank you for your video. I watched it the other day and recall enjoying it.

This is one thing I am considering I think... People always ask "why is there something rather than nothing". Maybe there's NOT something. Maybe "something" is all maintained within nothing by some weird paradox. But which paradox? Maybe "something" is just default. Logically nothing seems easier and more logical but maybe it's not. Outside of time there is only forever but from within time, forever seems impossible without beginning and end. Could the same be true of something like cause and effect? Is something similar to effect the default?