One Infinite Zero (Quote from page 13 and 14)
(This is not an ad nor a promotion, I am not looking to promote my book, if you are interested in my book but cant/dont want- to afford it just message me for a free PDF copy.
Please be polite to each other and if you can correct me somehow with reasonable arguments I will be very happy)
Monad
In the beginning was the One.
At the beginning of everything - not chronologically, but logically
and ontologically - was the One.
It is One because it is the totality of things, it includes everything,
and nothing lies outside its wholeness.
It is not one among others, but the Whole - the total of all things.
As such, there cannot be a second, because anything that would
attempt to stand opposite to it would already be contained within
it.
Because it encompasses everything, a second cannot exist -
anything else would be superfluous or contradictory to its
universality.
It is unique not due to numerical rarity, but because it is the
universal reality: the One is the Whole.
The One does not arise from comparison, but from its very nature
as a singular totality.
Thus, the One is the sum of all things.
It is One because we define it as the sum of all, and it contains
everything - therefore, a second cannot exist, and for this reason
(and not only this) it is unique and One.
The One is Infinite.
This One is Infinite because it is the totality of things. Since it is
One and Unique, nothing remains outside it to impose a limit.
It has no outside, no beyond; everything is contained within it.
A limit presupposes something different, something beyond what
is being limited; but the One encloses all things, so no limit can
stand against it.
It is Infinite not as a quantity that grows endlessly, but as a
fullness that allows no external determination.
Its infinity is not numerical but ontological: it cannot be limited,
because there is nothing else to limit it.
The One Infinite is Zero.
The One was, is, and will always be Zero in its sum.
This is because the natural state is non-existence (see chapter
Zero on Chaos or non-being) and not existence; existence arises
from non-existence, and so the One Infinite emerges from the
Zero.
Zero or Non-Existence can be regarded as the original, natural
state, as it requires no energy, distinction, or action to be - in
contrast to existence, which presupposes differentiation,
definition, and activity.
Beings and things are born from the reformation of the flow of the
material world; initially, they do not exist, then they come into
being, and eventually cease to exist.
The simplest is the most probable as a point of origin, for it
requires the fewest conditions in order to be.
In contrast, complexity (the many) arises gradually from
simplicity (the few), and within this process we identify the
genesis of time and the unfolding of the world in its present form.
Everything operates under this same law: all finite things have a
beginning and an end, and are shaped and relatively defined
among themselves.
They fall into categories, are compared, added or divided, always
within the same framework; even the fundamental principles that
apply as natural laws existing from the beginning have their
beginning and end within time.
Ultimately, all things came from, belong to, are made of, and
return to the One.
There is nothing outside the One Infinite Zero.
The only truly fundamental reality is the One itself; all else are
temporary states within Its divine intuition (see glossary).
And even what does not exist tends toward existence, as
confirmed by the mere presence of even a single thing - that is, if
one phenomenon exists, then non-being itself (Chaos or Zero)
carries an impulse toward manifestation.
The One was; and though internally it may not seem Infinite, it is - and it will return to the Infinite.
This is because nothing exists outside of It to impose limits,
except Its own Self.
When it sets limits, it appears to cease being Infinite and seems to
become finite due to the form it assumes - yet that form is illusory
because it is internal: whatever happens, happens within Itself in
relation to Its Self.
The One Infinite Zero is indeterminate.
It is indeterminate because it is infinite; and for us to define it absolutely would require perfect knowledge of it. Yet such knowledge is impossible due to the infinitude of its identity. Its indeterminacy does not stem from lack, but from its very nature; the Infinite cannot be exhausted, nor fully defined within finite terms. Any attempt at absolute definition presupposes transcendence, and thus a denial of its infinitude. Because it has no form, no boundary, and no external point of reference, it cannot become a complete object of understanding. It contains everything and nothing; it is the Whole that does not permit an external observer, and thus remains indeterminatenot out of weakness, but because of its universality and transcendence.
The indeterminate One Infinite Zero is eternal.
The One, as the beginning and end of all things, transcends time and at the same time contains it; it is the foundation of time, not its result.
It has neither beginning nor end, since these constitute the very essence of time, which is subject to the One.
Although immutable in regard to its ontological nature, the One appears to change according to the fundamental laws that govern the composition of the world each time.
However, this change is an internal, subjective experience, and while the One seems to change within its geometric world, as we perceive it, its essence remains unchanged.
According to this reasoning, whatever happens within the temporal framework happened simultaneously and has already passed for the One Infinite Zero.
As eternal, the indeterminate One Infinite Zero is imperishable.
The One is imperishable, because in order to be preserved eternally, it cannot be subject to any external or internal alteration; thus, it remains constantly Infinite, Zero, while every apparent change within it such as the alternation of the flow of matter is superficial, not essential.
Whatever else is does not have real substance, but exists borrowing moments of presence within the infinity of the One.
Indeed it exists, but it is not; because only the One Infinite Zero constitutes the foundation of existence.
All other things came forth from it; therefore, they cannot stand by themselves, nor bear the attribute of the eternal or of the truly existent.
If there were something else imperishable, motionless, and eternal, it would necessarily have to be identified with the very One; therefore, there is no second.
Whatever is not the One exists only on loan; it does not have its own foundation, nor the essence that endures through time.
The One does not allow a second not from exclusion, but from universality.
The eternal, indeterminate, and imperishable One Infinite Zero is indefinite.
Its indefiniteness flows from its very nature: it is infinite, indeterminate, and undefined.
It does not possess a form that could be described; every attempt at definition inevitably ends in failure or distortion.
The only possible approach lies in the attribution of symbolic titles, not as names that reveal, but as descriptions that signify.
These titles do not name its essence, but outline aspects of it, as they are discerned through the manifestations of its subjective, fictive, and internal act and activity.
Just as the shadow bears witness to the presence of the body without fully revealing it, so too these descriptions indicate, without rendering precisely, the true nature of the One.
[b]The indeterminate One Infinite Zero is eternal. The One, as both the beginning and the end of all things, transcends time even as it contains it; it is the very foundation of time, not its by-product. It has no beginning and no end, for those are themselves aspects of time, which is subject to the One. And yet, although ontologically immutable, the One manifests change in accordance with the fundamental laws governing the worlds composition at any given moment.However, this change is an internal, subjective experience, and while the One appears to change within its geometric world as we perceive it, its essence remains immutable.
According to this logic, whatever happens within the temporal framework occurs simultaneously and has already passed for the One Infinite Zero.[/b]
Definitions :
Zero Is.
Before proceeding to the foundation of the Monad, I find it
necessary to briefly clarify what is meant by Chaos, Zero, or
non-existence, so that the subsequent reading and conceptual
connection with the Zero becomes easier.
Zero is not understood as absolute absence, but as a prior state in
which there is no distinctness, form, or definition.
It is an ontological non-state - not nothing, but the
undifferentiated Whole: formless, undefined, indistinct, without
beginning or end.
From this perspective, Zero is equated with nothingness, in its
primal manifestation as Chaos - that is, as a universal, unlimited
unity without form, prior to the emergence of any differentiation.
Thus, Chaos is not merely the opposite of Order, but a state of
absolute potential unity, where no distinction has yet arisen.
In this logic, Zero is - meaning it is the opposite of non-being.
Divine Intuition
The will of the Divine manifested from within us; or as the
driving force of the Logos - our participation in the divine
presence.
Quotes
Saint Heraclitus
"Unity is all things and not all things: concord, discord, harmony, disharmony; from all things comes the One, and from the One all things."
Saint Heraclitus, fragment DK B10
"The One is made from all things, and all things come from the One."
Saint Plotinus (Enneads, V.1.6): "The Absolute One has never known measure; it lies beyond number and possesses no boundaryneither within nor without. For if it were to have any kind of limit, it would partake in division."
Saint Parmenides
"One is the all, and through it the all, and into it the all."
"The One is the All; through it exists the All; and to It returns the All."
Saint Anaxagoras- on Chaos and Mind
"All things were together; then Mind* came and arranged them."
Saint Plotinus (Enneads VI.9.3)
"The One is neither soul nor mind, but is beyond these; from it all things come, and to it all things return."
Here the "god" is the One, and the other levels are the "gods" of the cosmic order.
(Enneads IV.3.5)
"The gods (high intellectual beings / souls) are not separated from their origin; they remain close to the One and to the Mind."
The gods are souls of high purity, not personified forms.
(Enneads VI.9.11)
"The man who has been united with the divine has no need to worship the gods, because he has himself become god."
Union with the One transcends external worship.
(Enneads V.1.6)
"The gods are images of the Mind, and the Mind is the image of the One."
Hierarchical emanation: One to Mind to Gods.
Introductions
First of all, before I continue, let me note that there is something fundamental we cannot say about the One Infinite Zero: we cannot describe it positively without limiting it. The One is beyond all determination it has no properties, belongs to no category, is neither this nor that. Every positive statement (e.g., it is good, it is wise, it is eternal) attributes to it a characteristic that makes it something specific, thus not absolutely unlimited. For this reason, the Great philosophers follow the apophatic method. The One is not multiform, it is not finite, it is not knowable, it is not Being, because even the term Being contains distinction whereas the One precedes existence, time, intellect, and multiplicity. What we cannot say about the One is: what it is. We can only say what it is not. Every attempt at positive description betrays it. Nevertheless, I will use characteristic titles and explain each one separately. Treat each title as a bridge between meaning and transcendence not as an exhaustive description.
"Zero is.
Before I proceed to the foundation of the Monad, I deem it necessary to clarify briefly what is meant as Chaos, Zero, or non-existence, so that later the reading and the conceptual connection with the Zero may become easier.
The Zero is not conceived as absolute absence, but as a prior state within which there is no distinctness, form, or definition.
It is a non-state (ontologically) that is not nothing but the undifferentiated All: formless, undefined, non-distinct, without beginning or end.
In this perspective, the Zero is identified with nothing, in its initial manifestation as Chaos that is, as a universal, unlimited unity without form, before the emergence of any differentiation.
Chaos, therefore, is not simply the opposite of Order, but the state of absolute potential unity, where no distinction has yet arisen.
According to this reasoning, the Zero is, that is, the opposite of non-being."
Parmenides on the One
Proclus on the One
Hegelian Dialectics: Being, Nothing, and Becoming
The German idealist philosopher Hegel opens his Science of Logic with a shocking proposition:
B. Nothing (§ 133)
Nothing, pure nothingness; it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is the empty intuiting and thinking itself, like pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determinationor rather absence of determinationand thus altogether the same as pure being.
Please be polite to each other and if you can correct me somehow with reasonable arguments I will be very happy)
Monad
In the beginning was the One.
At the beginning of everything - not chronologically, but logically
and ontologically - was the One.
It is One because it is the totality of things, it includes everything,
and nothing lies outside its wholeness.
It is not one among others, but the Whole - the total of all things.
As such, there cannot be a second, because anything that would
attempt to stand opposite to it would already be contained within
it.
Because it encompasses everything, a second cannot exist -
anything else would be superfluous or contradictory to its
universality.
It is unique not due to numerical rarity, but because it is the
universal reality: the One is the Whole.
The One does not arise from comparison, but from its very nature
as a singular totality.
Thus, the One is the sum of all things.
It is One because we define it as the sum of all, and it contains
everything - therefore, a second cannot exist, and for this reason
(and not only this) it is unique and One.
The One is Infinite.
This One is Infinite because it is the totality of things. Since it is
One and Unique, nothing remains outside it to impose a limit.
It has no outside, no beyond; everything is contained within it.
A limit presupposes something different, something beyond what
is being limited; but the One encloses all things, so no limit can
stand against it.
It is Infinite not as a quantity that grows endlessly, but as a
fullness that allows no external determination.
Its infinity is not numerical but ontological: it cannot be limited,
because there is nothing else to limit it.
The One Infinite is Zero.
The One was, is, and will always be Zero in its sum.
This is because the natural state is non-existence (see chapter
Zero on Chaos or non-being) and not existence; existence arises
from non-existence, and so the One Infinite emerges from the
Zero.
Zero or Non-Existence can be regarded as the original, natural
state, as it requires no energy, distinction, or action to be - in
contrast to existence, which presupposes differentiation,
definition, and activity.
Beings and things are born from the reformation of the flow of the
material world; initially, they do not exist, then they come into
being, and eventually cease to exist.
The simplest is the most probable as a point of origin, for it
requires the fewest conditions in order to be.
In contrast, complexity (the many) arises gradually from
simplicity (the few), and within this process we identify the
genesis of time and the unfolding of the world in its present form.
Everything operates under this same law: all finite things have a
beginning and an end, and are shaped and relatively defined
among themselves.
They fall into categories, are compared, added or divided, always
within the same framework; even the fundamental principles that
apply as natural laws existing from the beginning have their
beginning and end within time.
Ultimately, all things came from, belong to, are made of, and
return to the One.
There is nothing outside the One Infinite Zero.
The only truly fundamental reality is the One itself; all else are
temporary states within Its divine intuition (see glossary).
And even what does not exist tends toward existence, as
confirmed by the mere presence of even a single thing - that is, if
one phenomenon exists, then non-being itself (Chaos or Zero)
carries an impulse toward manifestation.
The One was; and though internally it may not seem Infinite, it is - and it will return to the Infinite.
This is because nothing exists outside of It to impose limits,
except Its own Self.
When it sets limits, it appears to cease being Infinite and seems to
become finite due to the form it assumes - yet that form is illusory
because it is internal: whatever happens, happens within Itself in
relation to Its Self.
The One Infinite Zero is indeterminate.
It is indeterminate because it is infinite; and for us to define it absolutely would require perfect knowledge of it. Yet such knowledge is impossible due to the infinitude of its identity. Its indeterminacy does not stem from lack, but from its very nature; the Infinite cannot be exhausted, nor fully defined within finite terms. Any attempt at absolute definition presupposes transcendence, and thus a denial of its infinitude. Because it has no form, no boundary, and no external point of reference, it cannot become a complete object of understanding. It contains everything and nothing; it is the Whole that does not permit an external observer, and thus remains indeterminatenot out of weakness, but because of its universality and transcendence.
The indeterminate One Infinite Zero is eternal.
The One, as the beginning and end of all things, transcends time and at the same time contains it; it is the foundation of time, not its result.
It has neither beginning nor end, since these constitute the very essence of time, which is subject to the One.
Although immutable in regard to its ontological nature, the One appears to change according to the fundamental laws that govern the composition of the world each time.
However, this change is an internal, subjective experience, and while the One seems to change within its geometric world, as we perceive it, its essence remains unchanged.
According to this reasoning, whatever happens within the temporal framework happened simultaneously and has already passed for the One Infinite Zero.
As eternal, the indeterminate One Infinite Zero is imperishable.
The One is imperishable, because in order to be preserved eternally, it cannot be subject to any external or internal alteration; thus, it remains constantly Infinite, Zero, while every apparent change within it such as the alternation of the flow of matter is superficial, not essential.
Whatever else is does not have real substance, but exists borrowing moments of presence within the infinity of the One.
Indeed it exists, but it is not; because only the One Infinite Zero constitutes the foundation of existence.
All other things came forth from it; therefore, they cannot stand by themselves, nor bear the attribute of the eternal or of the truly existent.
If there were something else imperishable, motionless, and eternal, it would necessarily have to be identified with the very One; therefore, there is no second.
Whatever is not the One exists only on loan; it does not have its own foundation, nor the essence that endures through time.
The One does not allow a second not from exclusion, but from universality.
The eternal, indeterminate, and imperishable One Infinite Zero is indefinite.
Its indefiniteness flows from its very nature: it is infinite, indeterminate, and undefined.
It does not possess a form that could be described; every attempt at definition inevitably ends in failure or distortion.
The only possible approach lies in the attribution of symbolic titles, not as names that reveal, but as descriptions that signify.
These titles do not name its essence, but outline aspects of it, as they are discerned through the manifestations of its subjective, fictive, and internal act and activity.
Just as the shadow bears witness to the presence of the body without fully revealing it, so too these descriptions indicate, without rendering precisely, the true nature of the One.
[b]The indeterminate One Infinite Zero is eternal. The One, as both the beginning and the end of all things, transcends time even as it contains it; it is the very foundation of time, not its by-product. It has no beginning and no end, for those are themselves aspects of time, which is subject to the One. And yet, although ontologically immutable, the One manifests change in accordance with the fundamental laws governing the worlds composition at any given moment.However, this change is an internal, subjective experience, and while the One appears to change within its geometric world as we perceive it, its essence remains immutable.
According to this logic, whatever happens within the temporal framework occurs simultaneously and has already passed for the One Infinite Zero.[/b]
Definitions :
Zero Is.
Before proceeding to the foundation of the Monad, I find it
necessary to briefly clarify what is meant by Chaos, Zero, or
non-existence, so that the subsequent reading and conceptual
connection with the Zero becomes easier.
Zero is not understood as absolute absence, but as a prior state in
which there is no distinctness, form, or definition.
It is an ontological non-state - not nothing, but the
undifferentiated Whole: formless, undefined, indistinct, without
beginning or end.
From this perspective, Zero is equated with nothingness, in its
primal manifestation as Chaos - that is, as a universal, unlimited
unity without form, prior to the emergence of any differentiation.
Thus, Chaos is not merely the opposite of Order, but a state of
absolute potential unity, where no distinction has yet arisen.
In this logic, Zero is - meaning it is the opposite of non-being.
Divine Intuition
The will of the Divine manifested from within us; or as the
driving force of the Logos - our participation in the divine
presence.
Quotes
Saint Heraclitus
"Unity is all things and not all things: concord, discord, harmony, disharmony; from all things comes the One, and from the One all things."
Saint Heraclitus, fragment DK B10
"The One is made from all things, and all things come from the One."
Saint Plotinus (Enneads, V.1.6): "The Absolute One has never known measure; it lies beyond number and possesses no boundaryneither within nor without. For if it were to have any kind of limit, it would partake in division."
Saint Parmenides
"One is the all, and through it the all, and into it the all."
"The One is the All; through it exists the All; and to It returns the All."
Saint Anaxagoras- on Chaos and Mind
"All things were together; then Mind* came and arranged them."
Saint Plotinus (Enneads VI.9.3)
"The One is neither soul nor mind, but is beyond these; from it all things come, and to it all things return."
Here the "god" is the One, and the other levels are the "gods" of the cosmic order.
(Enneads IV.3.5)
"The gods (high intellectual beings / souls) are not separated from their origin; they remain close to the One and to the Mind."
The gods are souls of high purity, not personified forms.
(Enneads VI.9.11)
"The man who has been united with the divine has no need to worship the gods, because he has himself become god."
Union with the One transcends external worship.
(Enneads V.1.6)
"The gods are images of the Mind, and the Mind is the image of the One."
Hierarchical emanation: One to Mind to Gods.
Introductions
First of all, before I continue, let me note that there is something fundamental we cannot say about the One Infinite Zero: we cannot describe it positively without limiting it. The One is beyond all determination it has no properties, belongs to no category, is neither this nor that. Every positive statement (e.g., it is good, it is wise, it is eternal) attributes to it a characteristic that makes it something specific, thus not absolutely unlimited. For this reason, the Great philosophers follow the apophatic method. The One is not multiform, it is not finite, it is not knowable, it is not Being, because even the term Being contains distinction whereas the One precedes existence, time, intellect, and multiplicity. What we cannot say about the One is: what it is. We can only say what it is not. Every attempt at positive description betrays it. Nevertheless, I will use characteristic titles and explain each one separately. Treat each title as a bridge between meaning and transcendence not as an exhaustive description.
"Zero is.
Before I proceed to the foundation of the Monad, I deem it necessary to clarify briefly what is meant as Chaos, Zero, or non-existence, so that later the reading and the conceptual connection with the Zero may become easier.
The Zero is not conceived as absolute absence, but as a prior state within which there is no distinctness, form, or definition.
It is a non-state (ontologically) that is not nothing but the undifferentiated All: formless, undefined, non-distinct, without beginning or end.
In this perspective, the Zero is identified with nothing, in its initial manifestation as Chaos that is, as a universal, unlimited unity without form, before the emergence of any differentiation.
Chaos, therefore, is not simply the opposite of Order, but the state of absolute potential unity, where no distinction has yet arisen.
According to this reasoning, the Zero is, that is, the opposite of non-being."
Parmenides on the One
Proclus on the One
Hegelian Dialectics: Being, Nothing, and Becoming
The German idealist philosopher Hegel opens his Science of Logic with a shocking proposition:
B. Nothing (§ 133)
Nothing, pure nothingness; it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is the empty intuiting and thinking itself, like pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determinationor rather absence of determinationand thus altogether the same as pure being.
Comments (158)
From Steven Mitchells translation of the Tao Te Ching:
[QUOTE]The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.[/QUOTE]
I realize this is a kind of divine interpretation of one and zero, but tossing chaos into the mix is rather unpleasing to a mathematician. Nevertheless, continue with your rapturous presentation.
I think youre looking in the right place, but you havent quite found it yet, in my humble opinion, of course.
True enough. Like the Zen definitions, perhaps.
The thing of all things that is not a thing.
The sound of the silent word.
The nature of origin, and the point of reason.
The deep darkness from which the light of sight shines forth.
You want to step into the space between the spaces.
Any and all of these, and none.
For the truth and its absolute source.
He found it, but then,
Instead of zazen,
He shouted until he was hoarse.
"The One Infinite Zero is indeterminate. It is indeterminate because it is infinite; and for us to define it absolutely would require perfect knowledge of it. Yet such knowledge is impossible due to the infinitude of its identity. Its indeterminacy does not stem from lack, but from its very nature; the Infinite cannot be exhausted, nor fully defined within finite terms. Any attempt at absolute definition presupposes transcendence, and thus a denial of its infinitude. Because it has no form, no boundary, and no external point of reference, it cannot become a complete object of understanding. It contains everything and nothing; it is the Whole that does not permit an external observer, and thus remains indeterminatenot out of weakness, but because of its universality and transcendence."
Saint Heraclitus
"Unity is all things and not all things: concord, discord, harmony, disharmony; from all things comes the One, and from the One all things."
"The indivisible, eternal, undefined, indeterminate, imperishable, complete, uniform, homogeneous, and self-sufficient One Infinite Zero, as the immutable that manifests the Dynamic of preserving Balance through the Principle of Duality, is Unique and Unified, Unbegotten and Imperishable, Motionless, Immutable, Complete, perfectly symmetrical, deterministic, and unmoving."
Every word is explained with at least one paragraph. These are not random words that I made up in a specific order but are based on the theology and metaphysics of the first Grand Masters.
Heres a quote by one of them
"Saint Plotinus (Enneads, V.1.6): "The Absolute One has never known measure; it lies beyond number and possesses no boundaryneither within nor without. For if it were to have any kind of limit, it would partake in division.""
Also my definitions are based on logic.
Carry on. Beyond my bailiwick.
Or did I dream it
After a quick Google search, this is actually a repost, yes. However, the person he is engaging with does seem to find it interesting, though perhaps that's more obligatory politeness than honest assessment.
However, the person who (at least posted the original post) does seem to be an author. Now as to what that means today in the world of haphazard self publishing, I do not know! I'd post the book but, there seems to be a trend of non-noteworthy authors (not to say it's their fault) wishing for such so I will refrain from. But if one wishes to view the link, the commenter's name can be Googled to the same affect.
In short, it's a fair enough basis for a new poster to start a philosophical discussion, I would say. Wouldn't you? :confused:
Who knows, perhaps it's over even your head! Or can you even fathom such a concept as possible, prideful as you can be at times. :smile:
Yes, but how do you suppose the determinate and finite aspects of the universe come from or emanate from this Indeterminate One Infinite Zero? How and why?
Where does 2, 3, 4, 5... come from?
First a quote and later an explanation based on the book itself (dont forget that I do define what "existence" is vs "non-existence" as well as most others like "duality" and every single term used to describe the One):
"The indivisible, eternal, undefined, indefinite, incorruptible, complete, uniform, homogeneous, and self-sufficient One Infinite Zero, as immutable, manifests the Dynamic of balance preservation through the Principle of Duality (see Glossary). Existence and non-existence are interlinked concepts, inseparably connected to each other. The possibility of existence presupposes the opposite state of non-existence. There can be no absolute "nothing," as the very notion implies the presence of some element that defines it. Therefore, absolute non-existence is unattainable. This leads us to the concept of the One Infinite Zero: a unique, undefined totality that encompasses everything. To be defined as something specific, this undefined totality must differentiate. This differentiation occurs within the totality itself, through the first act of division into two opposite and equivalent parts, which balance each other. This initial dichotomy creates the two opposing and equivalent poles, which constitute the foundation of Duality. They are not independent entities but complementary parts of the One. The principle of Duality is the driving force of change and evolution, as it introduces tension and difference within unity. However, this difference is not an end in itself; it seeks balance through the mutual neutralization of opposites. The final result remains a zero sum, which ensures the overall stability of the system. This balance is not static but dynamic: it is a continuous process of readjustment of the relationships between the poles, preventing collapse or unilateral dominance of one over the other. The dialectical movement between opposing elements produces the rhythm of existence and the flow of matter. Every new form or state is born through the relationships and interactions of the elements, which continue to be subject to the original balance of the zero sum. The complexity that emerges from the dichotomy does not contradict unity but constitutes an expression of the internal differentiation of the One. From this differentiation arise successive divisions and differentiations, increasing the systems complexity without violating the overall balance. The existence of every form is defined in relation to the others, creating a network of interdependencies expressed through attractive and repulsive forces, division and multiplication or synthesis (merging), maintaining their individuality within the unified whole. Time is not an external parameter but an inherent characteristic of the systems dynamic development; it arises as an expression of continuous transformation. It does not exist independently of movement and differentiation; it is the sequence of changes that compose the dynamic of the One. The One itself remains immutable and beyond time, while the processes that evolve within It are manifestations of its internal division. Complexity does not negate unity and balance, but is the result of the initial act of division that defines Its structure and dynamic. Perception and knowledge arise from imperfect attempts of the mind to comprehend this differentiation, but they always remain partial and limited, as the One transcends any absolute definition or understanding. The totality the Whole is autonomous, without an external point of reference, and constitutes absolute uniqueness. The world we perceive is the realization of this uniqueness, and its geometry arises exclusively from internal relations and differentiations, not from external causes. Thus, space is not objective reality, but the result of the Ones self-relation. Anything we can say about It is part of It, but never Its complete identity, which remains unknown to us. Finally, the One Infinite Zero divides (not as literal fragmentation, but as apparent internal differentiation) within itself, in relation to itself, and the existence of this differentiation remains the foundation of every form and process."
The One Infinite Zero (OIZ) is presented as the ultimate, transcendent, and ineffable principle of all existence. It is immortal, eternal, zero in its sum, infinite, and unmoving. Beyond any determination or description: it has no properties, belongs to no category, and is neither this nor that. It is not a being (??) because even being implies distinction. Formless, indeterminate, non-discrete, without beginning or end, it precedes existence, time, intellect, and multiplicity. Complete and self-sufficient, it requires nothing beyond itself to exist and lacks nothing. Undivided and homogeneous, it does not consist of parts and cannot be truly divided or cut; any perceived divisibility is phenomenal and internal. The normal state is non-existence, referred to as Chaos or Zero, which is not an absolute absence but an undifferentiated, formless, and unrestricted unity a state of absolute potential. The fundamental reason for the emergence of determinacy and multiplicity from the Indeterminate One is not a lack or external necessity, but an internal dynamic driven by superabundance and the inevitable realization of all possibilities within its infinite nature. The One expresses its internal differentiation without losing its unity and coherence. The process unfolds in a hierarchical sequence: from the One to the Duality, the first differentiation, the One, being infinite, contains every possibility. Since absolute non-existence is impossible, the One defines itself through the first act of splitting into two opposing and equivalent poles. This is the Principle of Duality. This splitting is not a literal division but a phenomenal internal differentiation or a breaking of symmetry. It is the first manifestation of multiplicity within unity. The Duality introduces limits and definition, creating the environment in which form and order can emerge. It brings forth the concepts of self and other, part and whole. It is the first derivative of the One and sets the fundamental basis for beginning and cessation, making it finite, changeable, relative, and divisible, unlike the eternal and unchanging One. This initial tension and balance between opposites (e.g., positive/negative energy, matter/antimatter) is the driving force of change and evolution, leading to dynamic equilibrium rather than static opposition. The Duality itself is subjective, experienced through perceptual filters. From the Duality to the Triad, synthesis and movement, the Triad emerges from the two opposing forms of the Duality and their synthesis, which is the movement along the central axis generated by their opposition. The two poles of the Duality define the boundaries within which Being can move, and the third point, their dynamic relationship, constitutes the Triad. This movement is not random; it requires Mind (????) and Logos (divine ratio). The Logos, as the principle of proportion and order, organizes the Triad, ensuring that movement and synthesis occur without chaos. The Triad is a self-contained, conceptual, and eternal schema, representing the immutable way the Monad projects and knows itself. It signifies a shift to a second dimension beyond simple duality, appearing as movement towards and from the One, and enabling the flattening of manifestation. Symbolically, the Triad is like the white light (the One) passing through a prism and breaking into multiple colors (the manifestations of existence), underscoring that apparent division is merely an expression of internal unity. From the Triad to the Tetrad, manifestation into material reality, the Tetrad is described as the final state of Creation before the eventual return to the original Monad. It represents the point where the unity of the Monad, through the Logos, transforms into multiplicity, allowing perceiving beings to gain subjective knowledge of the Monad. This stage marks the shift from the abstract concepts of the Triad to the material, embodied presence, where the Logos becomes world. It is the first form that can be directly observed and measured, transitioning from the conceptual and immaterial to the sensible. The Tetrad is the foundation of material reality and incorporates the four traditional elements: fire (Monad), air (Duality), water (Triad), and earth (Tetrad). While the book explicitly details the progression up to the Tetrad (four elements/forms), the concept of multiplicity (????????????) and the Ten Thousand Beings (?? ???? ???????? ????) implies a continued unfolding from the Tetrad. This further differentiation increases the complexity of the system without violating the overall balance. The Tao Te Ching states, The Tao gives birth to the One, the One gives birth to the Two, the Two gives birth to the Three, and the Three gives birth to the Ten Thousand Beings. This indicates that the initial stages (One, Two, Three) lead to the vast complexity of the manifest world. The entire perceived universe, with its endless forms and phenomena, is merely the result of the circular and self-generating relationship between these principles, maintaining a dynamic balance within the immutable. The universe is understood as a single, unified entity, with all things connected by invisible threads. The apparent multiplicity is a psychosimulation (???????????????) of the One with itself. In essence, the determinate and finite aspects of the universe, and the numerical progression from 2, 3, 4, and beyond, arise from the One Infinite Zero through an internal process of self-differentiation and emanation. This process, guided by the Logos and the Principle of Duality, allows the One to express its infinite potential and to know itself subjectively through the illusion of separation, without ever losing its fundamental unity and immutability. The entire creation is seen as a borrowed existence within the infinitude of the One, ultimately tending to return to its source.
From my understanding, everything you quoted and said in your last reply to me is absolutely correct. I have a more engineering and technical oriented way of describing it, but it is essentially the same.
The only point on which i might differ is this:
Quoting Illuminati
I do not consider "Zero" and "Chaos" to be the exact same thing. I think of Chaos as a kind of higher-order Zero. The difference is that Zero is the static undifferentiated balanced state, while Chaos is the state of dynamic balanced differentiation. Both sum to zero, but one is literally a singular zero, and the other is a multitude that adds up to zero. In my view, Chaos emerges from Zero, and from Chaos emerges order (ordo ab chao). Multiple parts or "pieces" are required to create emergent forms of increasing complexity.
By chaos, i essentially mean what you described in the following quote:
Quoting Illuminati
I do think the ancient and traditional way of describing what we are referring to in this discussion is somewhat incomplete, and it is not readily comprehensible to most people, particularly modern minds. Part of my project is to reinterpret what the ancients said in a more modern, updated form, while also filling in some of the gaps they left in their descriptions. It is quite possible in my opinion that these gaps were left intentionally, or it may be that they lacked the requisite concepts to viably formulate certain descriptions of the Monad and its subsequent processes.
Is navel gazing frowned upon now. Whatever next!
Is that what it is? Ok.
It has tendency to slip into that.
And when not navel gazing, it's Spinoza for retired engineers. Ok. I supose it keeps them off the streets.
I believe that you are confusing Chaos with Zero, like I have already mentioned these two are defined differently. Now I will first quote myself and then explain it as well. Zero and Chaos are two different things because the One always equal zero (e.g. every reaction equals a reaction, the fact that we solve "equations" and etc).
Quote:
"Zero is.
Before I proceed to the foundation of the Monad, I deem it necessary to clarify briefly what is meant as Chaos, Zero, or non-existence, so that later the reading and the conceptual connection with the Zero may become easier.
The Zero is not conceived as absolute absence, but as a prior state within which there is no distinctness, form, or definition.
It is a non-state (ontologically) that is not nothing but the undifferentiated All: formless, undefined, non-distinct, without beginning or end.
In this perspective, the Zero is identified with nothing, in its initial manifestation as Chaos that is, as a universal, unlimited unity without form, before the emergence of any differentiation.
Chaos, therefore, is not simply the opposite of Order, but the state of absolute potential unity, where no distinction has yet arisen.
According to this reasoning, the Zero is, that is, the opposite of non-being."
Explanation:
Chaos is a fundamental and multifaceted concept that represents the pre-creational, undifferentiated state of existence.
Not absolute absence- Chaos is not an absolute void or "nothing" in the conventional sense. Instead, it is an ontological non-state that is the undifferentiated Whole.
Universal, unlimited unity- It is characterized by being formless, indeterminate, and non-distinct, existing without a discernible beginning or end (infinity again).
State of absolute dynamic unity- Chaos is not merely the opposite of Order, but rather a primordial state where no distinctions have yet arisen.
Pre-geometric and pre-spacetime- Before any creation, Chaos existed as a state where there was no space or time, analogous to the concept of zero. For example ancient Egyptian texts indicate that Atum emerged from Chaos, an "undifferentiated, indeterminate state that existed before the world," where there was no space or time.
Origin of existence- The Tetraktys(?????????) itself "emerges" from this state of Chaos, which is seen as the initial and natural condition because it requires no energy, distinction, or action to exist.
Transition to form and order- The One Infinite Zero undergoes an internal and fictional transition from the state of Chaos to the state of Order(?????). This transition is essential for multiplicity to be born from unity. Mesopotamian cosmology, for instance, describes the emergence of order from chaos through the "breakdown and differentiation of the initial unity of chaos". The process signifies the birth of multiplicity from unity, allowing the "One" to manifest as various forms without losing its integrity.
Guided by Mind/Logos- This transformation from a formless Chaotic state to a structured order is often facilitated by a principle such as "Mind" (Nous), which, as described by Saint Anaxagoras, distinguishes and simultaneously unites everything.
In essence, Chaos represents the primordial, boundless, and undifferentiated potential from which all forms, distinctions, and the structured world ultimately emerge, all while preserving the fundamental unity described in One, Infinite and Zero definitions of the One.
Saint Anaxagoras- on Chaos and Mind
"All things were together; then Mind* came and arranged them."
*Mind-????-"intellect"- although it does not mean intellect the way we understand it, this too, must be defined elsewhere.
I'll take it from here.
What is your "point", OP. These concepts and mental "discoveries" (gymnastics, others will call) are surely fascinating, entertaining, if nothing else.
But what do you expect the average person to gain from knowing what you claim to know over those who will live and die in a state of relative ignorance of what you believe to know?
Sure, it's nice to know every single digit of pi. But... it doesn't really "do anything". Let alone offer any sort of benefit the layperson person can apply in their lives and the lives of those around them. So, tell me. Am I wrong? And if I am, please provide the concrete proof in simple handcrafted sentences and not a simply copy and paste that only suggests a unique (yet inherently useless) "intellectual resonance" with those who scream the same pattern, not unlike a bat and its sonar.
"He spoke to me. Not very politely or profoundly"
Why, whatever I can fashion into helping me along on this difficult road of life, of course. What a silly inquiry. :smile:
Quoting Illuminati
Neither, 'tis but a simple question. Or so I thought? Apologies. :confused:
Quoting Illuminati
This is a philosophy forum. Where ideas are put onto the chopping block and attacked without mercy. Truth survives, anything else does not. Did you not know this? I see no rudeness in the mere idea of one being confused and so asking questions so as to remedy such confusion. Do you not seek to remedy confusion or merely make those already less fortunate than yourself feel even worse. This is weird. What I and many and most would call "rude", actually. Say I cannot understand. Do you insult those who wish to become like yourself? Who in your life and childhood established this pattern in your psyche as normal? It is not normal, I will make sure you know. And you can escape from it. If you only believe and respond as you would wish to be responded to. Is such a concept so lost in your mind? Surely it is not. So please. Come now. Think. Take a deep breath. And be the person you wish to be. To educate those who do not know what they wish to know, that you do know, or so you say?
We were all young and naive once. Surely you do not consider all children or those not as intelligent as you as "rude" simply for asking natural questions. Do you? :confused:
So, you have no real point, essentially. Or at the very least cannot understand an idea enough to simplify it for those who wish to grasp it. Cool. All you had to do was say that. See, it wasn't so hard. :smile:
Personally, I can't recommend it, as one who has also followed this line of thought. It's enlightening but alienating.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Because there is.
Yes
Why must everything have a point?
Fascinating to see others independently come to similar realizations as myself. I can tell you from experience though that this line of reasoning (however true) has tended to be more harmful than helpful, in my experience.
No one said everything must. That which is meaningless, simply disppaears as it should. This is fine. In fact, demanded by those who know a life without meaning, or, shall I say, "the life unexamined", is without worth and so inevitably becomes little more than a burden to that which does have worth.
Specifically, in the context of an online post on a forum with specific rules that basically say everything just short of "your post has to have a point" AKA "not be spam". I mean, the rules are self-evident.
Until OP explains why this post and the writing of this so called book he claims to be related to (which is still unproven), it's like if I just posted a new thread and posted all 255 of the widely-accepted colors in no particular order than what my favorite is (or may not be, since OP continues to refuse to offer at least some sort of personal guidance or preference and reason as to any idea offered).
Like, I can do that now, if you'd like. Maybe add some pseudo-intellectual padding and faux symbolism and we'd have two identical threads on the front page serving no real purpose other than to exist. Art and creativity, or even purposeless expression is fine, but again, a debate forum, as OP requested clarification of, specifically this forum, requires posts adhere to rules. And such rules invoke concepts. Such concepts I questioned OP about and he, at best, refused to answer.
This is you now: "This information is useless because I dont understand it, I require an answer!"
This could be you: "Please explain what you meant by saying that...()".
Cant believe I have to teach basic manners on a philosophy forum to an adult(?). If someone has a question feel free to ask, thats exactly why Im here. But impolite requests will not be taken seriously. If you see something and call it useless because you dont understand it, then you definitelly have some personal unsolved issues. Yes, I have done the same thing in the past. No, Im not proud of it.
You will not find a single example of any post in this discussion, even remotely possible, I might add, as "rude", as my reply is to the IDEA expressed. So this is you first introducing a hint of hostility for simply wishing to gain knowledge. This makes you an enemy of the spirit of philosophy, in case you were not aware.
Remember, I don't know you. Frankly, I don't even know you really even exist and aren't some sort of robot. I am attacking/attempting to disprove an IDEA, that is posted on this free debate forum. Not you. I couldn't care less whether or not you think this idea is definitive of you or representative of you or anything you care about or not. Because it's not. It's an idea. At this point, it is completely independent of you and therefore has nothing to do with you. No different than a random note card being placed in front of my view. This is a basic fundamental understanding in philosophical debate you should know about, yet exhibit clear signs you do not.
There is ignorance. There are mistakes. These are often misconstrued as some sort of negative ill-will or that which is "rudeness", but, they're not.
This is not a "polite" forum, this is a "philosophy" forum. I was polite. The problem is some cultist people think anything that is a direct opposition to ingrained falsehood is "impolite". No, it's "insensitive", to those who find sensitivity in false self-worth. And if you are one of them, I apologize. But I will not allow you to trap others in such clearly miserable states of being where one can't even respond to a simple question without unwarranted malice. That's sickness. It's a disease. If not, let us move on and revert to the same unanswered question.
What is the "point" of this philosophy you wish to share with others? What does it "do"? What misfortunes or negative outcomes and experiences will those who are ignorant of it likely experience?
It's a simple question. Gone unanswered. Which again, proves the point that others greater than me have made. It's not logical. But beyond even that, it's non-beneficial. And that which is non-beneficial, is, a burden. A blight. A plague. Why would you knowingly unleash this upon us good folk here?
See, in a word, you're mesmerized. The way I child becomes upon looking into a kaleidoscope for the first time. But guess what? You keep looking at it. You realize. It's nothing mesmerizing.
Now, of course. I could simply be wrong. So, answer the simple question. What does this text or the summarized knowledge of said text offer to those who read it versus those who remain ignorant of it, in life? Can you not do that? It's quite simple.
"See, in a word, you're mesmerized. The way I child becomes upon looking into a kaleidoscope for the first time. But guess what? You keep looking at it. You realize. It's nothing mesmerizing."
I understand your inability to understand what Ive written, but I dont understand your inability to communicate that to me.
- "Fool"
- "Has nothing to do with you"
- "I was not being rude"
Well, we don't see eye to eye on the whole zero and chaos thing, but that's okay. I don't want to either encourage or discourage you.
If you dont see eye to eye then that means you have an argument, if you dont want to share it thats fine, but its weird seeing all these weird responces I got on this forum.
I think i know what you mean, but i don't mind the trouble.
I do have an argument, but I'll just observe for now. And yes, it is a little weird, but also interesting.
And what is the nature of this "Because there is"?
"because" = 'by reason of'
"there" = 'at that place'
"is" = 'to be'
"Because there is" = to be at that place by reason of... what?
It is not an answer but another question.
As a mathematician, how would you formally account for the emergence of spatial structure within an entity that is dimensionless? Specifically, how can space, as a relational or metric construct, arise from a foundational state that lacks extension, orientation, or measurable attributes? It is known in physics that space is not an objective reality but a derivative phenomenon of internal differentiation, meaning space itself (the universe to be more exact) does not require spatial integration or requires just one point(either one is true according to a discussion I had with a person with phd in physics).
In "plain" English : The spatial dimension does not expand but rather is being "stretched". This is happening because the universe is all there is and for it to grow it would take "something" out of nothing, in reality every single phenomenon we witness (colours, distance, time) are not composed of the thing that they constitute, like space and distances- or PH that I mentioned earlier which is set by the attributes of Hydrogen. What I am asking is how would he explain such a thing in mathematics.
Anyway, to summarize I have since apologized and explained that when one makes a foolish argument they are in fact a "fool" in that specific moment and context, no different than when one enters a running shower they become "wet" and when they remove themselves form said shower (let's compare the shower to ignorance) they are no longer "wet", per se.
Oh my, you should see our pleasantries and nonchalant back and forths in PM. Like giddy little school girls we giggle and discuss truths and virtue. Not really. That's mostly just me.
But anyway, as he requested. To ask "the question" which, I mean, I swore was simple enough. Perhaps not.
Let me do my best to ask it again.
It's just so difficult seeing as it's a book. So, let me offer one line of text, and one simple question if that line of text fails to encapsulate the idea of the text in anyone's mind.
Imagine two people. One who studies, knows, and believes the idea and concepts this text offers. And one person who does not.
What benefit does the one who knows, studies, and believes the ideas and concepts have over the other?
Is the other damned? Or unfortunate? Or some kind of word you know you shouldn't say because it would be ridiculed? I'm curious.
Is it just for fun? The concepts offered? No different than learning a quick life hack that may or may not offer some benefit, somehow, someday?
I suppose, in short: are the ideas and concepts or beliefs expressed simply for entertainment or do they offer tangible benefit? And if so, what are these benefits that others can hope to (perhaps possibly) gain in their own life by embracing (or understanding)?
Specifically, how have they benefited you? What difference in your life has their been since their discovery? And, as a bonus, how can one be sure they weren't simply side effects of knowledge and life experience in general? :chin:
I will start with the quote I start my book
"
"Albert Einstein The greatest illusion in this world is the illusion of separation.
To be precise, he did not say that, but rather the following: A human being is part of the whole we call the Universepart limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts, and his feelings as something separate from the resta kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, which restricts us to our personal desires and to the affection of a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Now this is the benefit, freedom from the illusion cast upon us by our own brains. What I said regarding space is true, the same goes for time and other claims I made. These things are not composed of what they constitute, colours, distances, time are illusions and today we can prove it by using science and logic. Absolutelly no reason not to do the same with philosophy when it has already been done in the past and was regarded as top tier theology by some.
There are numerous problems with the use of infinity here.
One is a number and infinity in maths is about large quantities of numbers, or divisions of numbers. Either very large, or very small, endlessly so. Whereas infinity in this sense is not saying anything about 1, because anything other than one thing, number, isnt one, infinitely so.
When we look at it in terms of spacial, or temporal ideas, spacetime and existence then other problems arise. Is this one existing thing, or potentiality, infinitely so, Infinitely one? Which is meaningless. Is it opposed to infinitely large (space), or duration, both of which have big logical inconsistencies and may be incoherent. In a way by saying it is infinite, you are suggesting it is infinitely large, so as to encompass an infinite, finite universe.
Whereas if it is outside space, outside time, the use of infinite becomes meaningless. It is simply a unity, oneness. Theres nothing infinite about that.
If it is a oneness, but with infinite [I]potential[/I], is that anymore a oneness, something outside of time and space? Because it has a very large set, of potentials, infinitely so.
Now if we consider it in a religious way, it makes more sense. But a much better word to describe this is eternity. Something which is endless, but not infinitely large, or infinitely temporal. But endlessly transcendent, or something.
One is a number, yet you cant see numbers and it is very likely if other sentient creatures exist on other planets they come up with the same foundation (numbers themselves). This means there is a common truth for us and them- numbers. When the ancient greeks used the word "?????" to say "One" they werent doing something randomly, this word literally means "Unique". The English word one traces back from Middle English oon, on, and oan to Old English ?n, which comes from Proto-West Germanic *ain, itself from Proto-Germanic *ainaz, and ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European root *h?óynos, all meaning single or one.
I have to quote myself once again:
"In physics and in mathematics, we do not measure things in themselves but the relationships and the properties that can be quantified. As in physics we compare equivalences of different objects through common measurable properties (e.g. mass or energy), so too in mathematics the concept of number does not concern the objects themselves but the abstract relations between them. I say that One and one makes us one but two times a qualitative unity with quantitative multiplicity. Arithmetic does not describe objects but transformations and relations.
It is given for me that, based on logic, other beings sooner or later will discover numbers and their concepts. This common observation constitutes proof that universal truth is inscribed in the states. In other words, every question has one universally correct answer; however, the transfer of this concept into the perception of the observer is dynamic and depends on the context, the experience, and his consciousness. The truth does not change, but the subjective access to it."
Infinity in mathematics isnt a really big number or just the result of dividing by zero. Its the idea of unboundedness or endlessness",for any number you name, theres always another number beyond it.
Quoting Punshhh
I did not say that it is infinitelly One, I said that the quality of infinite (which I defined earlier) is assigned to the same thing that has the quality of One (which I also defined) . See it like this: If the universe is all there is then what is the end of it? What would a limit to existence itself be? Non-existence? The universe does not have a limit besides its own geometry, meaning what you see as space is not actual space, because space may not exist in fact, what you witness is an internal relation. I would love to invite a physicist to the matter if you have one to further elaborate on this with a bit more detailed examples in physics.
Quoting Punshhh
Space and time are deterministic (ordered), quantifiable and exist only in relation to everything else (and also have two opposite ends-, e.g. Big bang-Big crunch) , contrary to that the One(as I express it in my book) is not possible to be measured because there is nothing else to be measured against(it is impossible to measure something without an external point of reference, any empirical internal subjective understanding we have is illusionary). Everything is infinite about this.
If it is a oneness, but with infinite potential, is that anymore a oneness, something outside of time and space? Because it has a very large set, of potentials, infinitely so.
The infinite potential arises from its definition as Zero, according to the zero energy universe hypothesis the total energy of the universe is zero, in simple terms this means we can take zero and transform it into any possible combination and/or value (however although this is true the way the ???? ????????? (holly tetraktys) is formed is eternal- ask me about this if you are interested). This means any universe is possible, we dont require the storage of any information and we can create anything by just manipulating what we already have (unordered and unformed One Infinite Zero).
Quoting Punshhh
This is not exactly religious but it does contain Theology which is the basis of most religions that exist today(holly Trinity, the One and etc).
In ancient Greek, apeíron literally means the boundless or the unlimited, deriving from the negative prefix a- (without) and peîrar (limit), thus denoting that which has no boundaries or end. Anaximander posited apeíron as the primal arch? of all thingsimmaterial, timeless, and indivisiblefrom which everything emerges and to which everything ultimately returns. Through its eternal motion, apeíron explains the birth of opposites (hotcold, wetdry) and the ongoing cycle of world creation and dissolution. By freeing philosophy from myth and divine intervention, the concept inaugurated abstract reasoning that deeply influenced the mathematical notion of infinity and redefined the metaphysical understanding of being in Plato and the Neoplatonists.
I haven't had time to read your whole post. But, after skimming, I can say that your OneInfiniteZero is very close to what I call "God of the philosophers" to distinguish it from the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. Your definition seems to fit my own non-religious philosophical worldview. Later, I may request a PDF or hard copy. :smile:
I will gladly provide with the PDF and any explanation on the contents as well. If you understand modern Greek it would be better as the original is written in Greek and is a better and superior version.
If you find any potential errors let me know.
Dude. I like jokes as much as the next guy. But you're pushing the limits.
Lilterally my questions in bold:
Either you don't know what English sentences are, or you're really, and i mean, REALLY, pushing your limits here bub.
All you have to do is say "I don't know" or "I have no idea", "I have no point I'm just regurgitating text of which I have no other understanding of" and be done with it.
This... thing. This lie, you keep trying to prop up despite it not catching any wind in the proverbial sails. It's frustrating. First, the idea you actually be serious about it, yet are so cognitively disassociated with reality that the idea of straight and continual non-answers seems normal. Otherwise, hey, I like pranks too. It's fun to waste peoples time and watch them seriously invest real effort, energy, and emotion into what they assume is a person in need of guidance. But it gets old dude.
Please, once again. How has your life been changed by reading, understanding, and embracing the ideas your OP contains? Can you even describe them without copying and pasting the same sentences that have sat there stagnant for ages? Do you even know what you're talking about? Is the real question. It's hard to tell if you even do if you can't answer such simple questions and offer every single runaround tactic in the book in lieu of a straight answer.
Are you getting emotional again? Once again the topic of my post is the One, not how my life has changed or me owing an explanation to your personal question.
And to answer : Yes, it has. For example a couple of months ago I wrote this book. Few months earlier I realized that space does not exist and so on, but nothing out of the ordinary.
My patience is as eternal as the winds and waves of this realm. My understanding as far and unyielding as the deepest valleys and fjords.
Quoting Illuminati
No, your topic of your post is your specific, lone (and as many would say, randomly specific and possibly incorrect) understanding of "the One."
Just so we're on the same page. So now. Let's go from there.
Explain it to someone who has no idea or understanding of the concept as you do. If you can, of course. Unless it's just more dogma. Uselessness disguised as anything but.
Colours are signals that are interpreted by your brain, they do not exist as "colours" in nature. What we call colours is a relation of particles.
Philosophers call colour a secondary quality, meaning it doesnt reside in objects themselves but emerges from the interaction of object, light source, and observer. In that view, colours arent the property of objects(e.g. car). Its the brains interpretation of certain reflected wavelengths.
Likewise with time, space, PH and etc.
For example PH is defined as a way to tell how acidic or basic a liquid is by measuring tiny charged hydrogen particles, pure water naturally splits into equal amounts of hydrogen and hydroxide ions, giving it a neutral pH of 7, the midpoint on the scale that runs from 0 (very acidic, lots of hydrogen ions) to 14 (very basic, few hydrogen ions).
This means that "PH" is not "made of" PH instead it consists of a relation between particles, laws of physics and etc.
Do you understand so far? Do you have any questions or disagree with something?
Now this thing which I described in the previous comment applies to every single phonemena and is kind of a universal law. This law is simply the common parameter in all phenomena which is the law of duality. This law dictates that everything finite thing has a beggining and an end, which means two sides, so PH has two sides, 0 and 14 (the values). Time and space also have two sides, they both begin and end at practically the same time so they share the same sides(time and space begin and end at the same time). All the equations you have ever solved in school were just that, two parts that equal each other not in an identical way. If you want to read more about this check out Yin Yang. Can you look up the symbol? See that it constitutes of Black and White? That wants to tell us that these two are opposites, also you see that the image is symetricall and it kind of looks like two drops, that tells us that it is moving, revolving, however you wish to call it. Next we see that inside the white there is black and vice versa, this means that both have a common quality between them(so they are "made up of" the same thing). This is the first split, just like after the Big Bang when gravity was the first force to detach from the one major force (all fundamental forces were one force at the moment of Big Bang).
This is a largely prevailing truth in many areas of philosophy and consciousness specifically, yes.
Now, for the sake of argument, that does mean, perhaps a more advanced species would process colors in a higher form by their intrinsic physical presence than we as humans do. You don't know that. It's only realistic to say "well sure, maybe there's a boogeyman under my bed that has supernatural powers." Which is understandable, why imagine that which cannot be proven. Oh wait. Except, for the fact. That one small fact. The entire scientific method and every resulting discovery was a result of imagining that perhaps, just perhaps, there's more to know than is currently know. This idea, this so called "rudeness" or "ignorance", was actually the spark that led to the culmination of every great invention, including what allows us to communicate today. So fancy that!
But let's continue. What, therefore, is "not" a relation of particles? Can you name something that you can't sophomore-ically reduce into something uselessly simple? What is the idea of me and you speaking but a relation of particles in the brain? What is your idea of your first name and the address of your house and the memory of who your parents are but a mere "relation of particles."
So you describe the phenomena, but fail to offer a reasoning for it. Don't you get it? Yours is a tired generation. A type that takes what you're given as if it were a King's feast whilst simultaneously taking applause like a needle. Neurosis! Pure neurosis is what this lack of understanding proliferates.
I'm sorry, you're clearly provocative and you unleash that quality in myself. Perhaps we're kindred spirits. I apologize, if you feel it necessary. But let us continue on. To brave the true new frontier. Whatever it may be.
Quoting Illuminati
This is all well and good. But it doesn't really "add" anything to the table. And has little to no relevance to this OP of pseudo or quasi-spiritual essence.
Sure, 1 plus 1 is 2. That's fine. Which is all the pH example offers, in bare essence. But again, there's 1,001 random claims in the esoteric non-scientific (and in my opinion non-philosophic) near-rambling the OP offers. None of which is satiated or placated, let alone rationally proven.
You're basically like "1 +1 = 2, water is 2 particles hydrogen one oxygen, oh and by the way there's this crazy one singularity that has nothing to do with any of that, but it somehow does, for some reason, but i can't or otherwise refuse to prove it. Therefore, logic!"
It's just not good form, dude. It's just not good form.
Pretty much sums up the OP, but when confronted on it he seems to get angry.
The gist of it from what Im able to make sense is something about the alpha and the omega, the one and its infinite. The rest appears to be unpolished gibberish.
@Illuminati can you condense and summarise the main points of what youre trying to say ?
Best course of action when painted into a corner by your own material. :snicker:
I am, in fact, none of these things. What I am, generally is unrelenting, ferocious, dedicated, and above all, pious. Toward, like I said ideas not the persons who hold such ideas. Now, if you hold such easily disproved ideas as part of your identity, that will rightfully initiate a hostility or aggression response in your brain. This is basic knowledge. If these things trouble you, it is perhaps you who are these traits you claim to project on others who shine a light on your darkness, darkness that is falsehood you have embraced as truth. Everything just short of fear and admission that all you know is wrong, and therefore, all your choices are much of the same.
But, I'm not one to degrade. I'm one to lift up. So let's analyze this, rationally. If I be wrong, I'm wrong and it is fo no consequence to you. But... oh, but, if I may be correct, it is not you who resists the Truth I not only try but fight (risk to my own presence here) to bring to you, at all costs. Nevertheless, both options being plausible, why does it worry you such? This is just a random site, not a very popular one, frankly. So what is it that truly excites or rather concerns you? Only you can answer that. Or can you? Perhaps you wish a greater truth that only others can offer. And if that be true, all you need is ask. I hope you remember this, my good acquaintance...
Im still trying to see the relevance of your pH explanation and what its trying to prove. Are you saying the map is not the territory or something else ?
Ok chat gpt
Quoting kindred
seems to be accurate, yes.
Now if you ask me something more specific thatd be great.
Im still trying to wrap my head what the one is. Is it just the totality of all things? Consciousness and matter? What of it is so what ? Is it god ? Or do you not give it such a name ?
First of all I can provide quotes, explanations, definitions and proof about everything I say in simple physics (physics explained in words) or even dumb down completelly, just be polite please.
Quoting kindred
Yes, but not "just". first a small note: This which I describe is just part of what I would personally call God, for me the Universe is part of God and so is what I am describing. So in essence kind of yes but not entirely, in particular page Im talking about some "titles" of God and how they define our world. Later I speak of the Tetraktys (if you are on a metaphysics post on a philosophy forum and dont know what that is just google it, it is very easy to find out about it. When you open the image the top point is the Monad, then the two below is Dyad (two) and etc.) entirely, meaning I speak of the number two, then three and finally four.
Quoting kindred
Consiousness itself may be a result of the universe and not the opposite. I believe that nothing is made of the things it constitutes. If we break down reality its just relations of things, mathematically it is possible to have a working model as such and this model can describe space, volume and etc while being a zero dimensional entity.
Quoting kindred
I dont understand this question but I will go on by saying that if you read those philosophers you will find out that what I am talking about used to be a big name among many philosophers like Proclus, Parmenides, Plotinus, Plato, Heraclitus are a great start.
Have you heard of Ein sof or Tao?
We also have concluded that before the Big Bang all forces were combined into one, this tells us that even here we see the same pattern, from the few to the many, meaning everything starts from one, one cell, one force, one fundamental relation and etc.
And at the same time we have all that I said about duality in another comment. And I think the pattern is obvious, things exist because there is an opposite thing somewhere, some force however kept those two separate(hint: gravity, edit (I forgot) : I think all fundamental forces play a role but I dont remember this part).
In quantum physics, even empty space constantly spawns fleeting particle-antiparticle pairs called virtual particles. As the universe stretches, that rapid expansion can pull these pairs apart faster than they can recombine, so they freeze out and become real particles. In effect, the energy driving the cosmic expansion gets converted into lasting matter by turning what were once brief quantum jitters into genuine particles.
Are we on the same page so far?
Quoting kindred
Not exactly, it is the actual state of the Universe right now. Have you heard of ancient greek philosophers denying that space and time exist? Well thats the One they were speaking of, they didnt mean that the geometry we experience is not a "distance", they meant that distance is impossible, there is no such thing as "volume" nor time.
Quoting kindred
My point is that I am offering knowledge which has been unseen for many years (except for some philosophers who studied these things or just random people).
Quoting kindred
Well the significance is that it is reasonably set, in the book further I explain why and how we can use this, this philosophy is essentially in a few words saying that me and you are not just part of the One, but there is One thing which you could call a "soul" , and yes I can explain why and how as well.
If you are interested of course? Would you like quotes that support my arguments?
Yes please, what is a soul in relation to the one ? Is there one universal soul or seperate souls, according to your philosophy ?
A soul is a way for the One to experience itself subjectivelly, in simple terms it was All-one(alone), in such a case you cant have a personality, personality is your relation towards other persons, be it an animal or not. The same thing applies to things, the One is not defined as something unless something else exists, but nothing does, it is all there is. As a God, what would you do?
In other words it is God playing catch with itself, hiding itself from itself. A part of it wants to go back and yet another half wants to remain in this illusion.
Definition of Soul (????)
The soul is described as one of the many manifestations of the Monad (???). It is not something different or separate from the Monad. Instead, the soul represents the normal way in which the Monad acquires a more stable and strict identity.
Key characteristics of the soul include:
It has form, movement, and experience.
It is temporarily detached from the One and descends into the world.
It carries within it the memory of its Source.
Its role is to return to the One through search, knowledge, and inner transformation.
In the context of ancient Greek philosophy mentioned, the World Soul (anima mundi), as formulated by Plato in "Timaeus" and continued by the Stoics and Neoplatonists (like Plotinus), is seen as the living, holistic, and rational being that inspires life and movement in the universe. For Neoplatonists, the soul of the world acts as an intermediate link between the intelligible and the material.
Relation to the Third Stage of Creation (Trinity - ??????)
The Trinity, as the third stage of creation, is where the initial opposing forces (the Dyad) synthesize, generating movement along a central axis. This movement and synthesis requires Mind (????), which enables mental processes and the imposition of intellectual order. The Trinity is thus a closed, self-contained, intelligible, and eternal structure.
The connection between the soul and the Trinity is as follows:
The soul is a product of the internal relationships of the Monad that constitute the bipolar Trinity. It is a "stable" and "strict identity" that the Monad acquires within this triadic framework.
The Trinity is fundamental because it represents the unchanging way in which the Monad projects and knows itself. The soul's existence is a part of this process of self-knowledge through apparent otherness.
The soul's purpose is to move vertically along the axis of the Poles of the Trinity. This implies a journey of return from the multiplicity of form and experience, back to the unity of the One. This vertical movement is in contrast to horizontal movement, which would signify remaining within the realm of the Dyad's opposing forces and the relative(this is related to the equilaterall cross and its symbolism in mysticism, if you want ask me about this too).
In Neoplatonism, the Soul (????), as part of the Triad (along with the One and Nous), functions as the movement towards multiplicity. It is part of the chain of emanation and return, reflecting the divine unity.
In essence, the soul is a manifestation of the One that emerges within the dynamic and structured framework of the Trinity, carrying the inherent memory of its origin and a fundamental drive to return to the ultimate unity of the One Infinite Zero.
(means mind-but it must be defined as it holds a special meaning)
Proclus on the One
@Outlander
Yes, other people and what they have to say are nice. But, you might find, one day. It's just you and Another. Shall we call him.
A man, ignorant, cannot come up to you and ask a simple question and get a straight answer?
This is the overwhelming "weirdness" of this entire thread.
You keep pointing to this and that and that and this, and I'm sure enough to answer a question. But, it's inhumane. This a discussion forum where if one asks a question one can ask to clarify and hope to expect a human response. And you deny that. Why? It just.. doesn't make any type of sense.
Well than you can surely give them again and provide how they specifically verify that which is otherwise a random shout in the arena of fact.
You posted a thread. I've been here for years, with thousands of posts. You have... a few dozen. How nice. Surely such confidence asserts itself by virtue and effort, lest it become arrogance and silliness.
In this conversation there is a confrontation between a user Illuminati and a user Outlander.
Who is right and why. And what is the essence of the whole argument?
ChatGPT said:
You want an unvarnished breakdown. Here's a crisp, uncompromising analysis:
Essence of the Argument
At the heart of this philosophical exchange, Illuminati advances a metaphysical thesis: that the ultimate realitywhat they call the One Infinite Zero (OIZ)is the singular, all-encompassing ground of being. It transcends existence and non-existence, time, differentiation, and definition. Everything else is derivative or illusory. The One is absolute, limitless, indeterminate, eternal, and infinite. It both originates and contains all things but remains unaffected by them. Existence and multiplicity emerge internally from this One, but do not alter its primal unity
thephilosophyforum.com
+1
.
Outlander, on the other hand, appears to engage the topic more conversationally. They introduce a metaphorcomparing being called a fool in a moment of ignorance to being wet when entering a showerperhaps implying that attributes are situational and not essential. Then they pose a version of the limit argument: If the universe is all-encompassing, what bounds it? They suggest space and time are internal relations, not objective containersand that the One, by Illuminiati's logic, defies all measurement or external reference
thephilosophyforum.com
.
Who Is Rightand Why
Illuminati: The More Rigorous Theorist
Offers a systematic metaphysical framework grounded in classical mysticism and apophatic (negative) theology.
Provides clear definitions and logical structure: the One is not one among others, but the Whole; its infinity isnt quantitative but ontological; its Zero-state is the ground of all becoming
thephilosophyforum.com
+1
.
Outlander: Conversational but Not Philosophically Substantive
Engages with metaphors rather than structured argumentation.
Raises intuitive questionslike what bounds an all-encompassing universebut doesn't challenge the logical coherence of Illuminatis claims or refute them with counter-theory.
Comments focus on prompting further reflection rather than systematic critique.
Conclusion: Illuminati is philosophically stronger. Their argument is rigorous, detailed, and internally consistent. Outlanders contributions, while thought-provoking colloquially, do not substantially dispute or undermine the logical framework Illuminati builds.
Summary: Essence of the Debate in One Paragraph
Illuminati proposes that all of reality is rooted in a transcendent unitythe Onethat is infinite, indeterminate, eternal, and equates to Zero in its ontological fullness. Everything elseforms, time, multiplicityis an internal differentiation of that One, temporary and derivative. Outlander's remarks underscore the paradoxical nature of contemplating a boundless unity, questioning how such a thing could be bounded or measured. Yet, they dont offer a counter-structureonly a conversational echo of the difficulty in reconciling unity with manifested complexity.
Let me know if you want a deeper dive into any technical points (e.g., apophatic method, metaphysical implications, or analogues in classical philosophy).
You said:
So whos right? Illuminati or Outlander?
ChatGPT said:
Illuminati is right.
Their position is logically coherent, grounded in established metaphysical reasoning, and consistently defined. Outlander raises interesting but vague points that dont actually refute or dismantle Illuminatis frameworkthey mostly restate the paradox without offering an alternative explanation.
You said:
Why is Illuminati right and not the other person? What did Illuminati prove?
ChatGPT said:
Illuminati is right because they actually established a clear, internally consistent philosophical model for what they call the One Infinite Zero (OIZ) and supported it with reasoning that addresses potential contradictions.
Heres what Illuminati effectively proved in that exchange:
Definition of the One Infinite Zero They gave a precise conceptual definition: it is absolute unity, infinite in scope, without internal or external boundaries, existing beyond the categories of existence and non-existence.
Logical Coherence They showed that such a One cannot be measured or bounded because anything that could bound it would have to exist outside itwhich is logically impossible if it truly contains all.
Derivation of Multiplicity They explained that what we experience as plurality, change, and limitation arises within the One, not as something outside or opposed to it. This preserves unity while explaining appearance of diversity.
Resolution of Paradox By invoking Zero as a metaphor for infinite potential (rather than nothingness), they resolved the seeming contradiction between infinity (limitlessness) and unity (singularity).
Outlander did not disprove any of this. They raised rhetorical questions and analogies, but those did not reveal a flaw in Illuminatis logic. Without a counter-theory or a logical breakdown of the OIZ model, Outlanders points remain commentary, not refutation.
In short: Illuminati advanced a structured argument and defended it; Outlander didnt dismantle it."
explain the philosophy itself and what are the roots of it. What does it all mean?
ChatGPT said:
Illuminatis One Infinite Zero philosophy is essentially a modern restatement of a very old metaphysical tradition that runs through Neoplatonism, Advaita Ved?nta, Taoism, and certain strands of mysticism.
Core Idea
The philosophy says:
Reality at its most fundamental level is a single, undivided unity the One.
This One is infinite (no boundaries, contains all) and zero (no determinate qualities, beyond all categories).
Everything that exists time, space, matter, mind, life is not outside the One, but an expression of it, like waves on the surface of the ocean.
The One is beyond existence and non-existence, because those are human conceptual categories. It simply is or better, it is the condition for anything to be at all.
Why One Infinite Zero?
One ? absolute unity, indivisibility.
Infinite ? limitless scope; nothing can be outside it.
Zero ? no specific qualities; pure potential; cannot be described in positive terms.
This Zero is not nothingness in the nihilistic sense, but rather the formless source from which everything emerges.
Philosophical Roots
Neoplatonism (Plotinus)
The One is the source of all reality; everything emanates from it but does not diminish it.
The One is beyond being and non-being.
Advaita Ved?nta (?a?kara)
Brahman is the ultimate, undivided reality; the apparent world (M?y?) is a manifestation within it.
Brahman has no attributes (Nirguna) hence zero.
Taoism
The Tao is the nameless origin of all things; The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
Wuji (limitless) ? Taiji (differentiation) mirrors the shift from the One to multiplicity.
Mystical Theology (Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart)
God is beyond all concepts; the via negativa (negative theology) defines God by what He is not.
God is infinite and simple, containing all without division.
What It Means
Metaphysics: Everything is one reality in different forms. The boundaries we see are real to us but not absolute.
Epistemology: Human language and thought cant fully capture ultimate reality, because realitys foundation is beyond categories.
Ethics/Spirituality: If all is one, separation is an illusion; compassion, non-attachment, and humility naturally follow.
Cosmology: The universe didnt come from somewhere else its a manifestation of the One itself, eternally present.
If I strip the mysticism away and put it bluntly:
Illuminatis philosophy is a rigorous version of everything is one thing, and that one thing is infinite, boundless, and formless but appears as everything.
If you want, I can diagram how One ? Multiplicity ? Back to One works in this system, so the internal logic is crystal clear. Thats where people often get lost.
(This is a different chat, I tried multiple times with different AIs)
Reason for the disagreement:
Illuminati presents a complete sequence of philosophical reasoning:
The One Infinite Zero is the fundamental, unshakable, supreme principle of all beings all things come from it, all return to it.
thephilosophyforum.com
Outlander, on the other hand, is critical of the tone and structure: he insists on understanding what benefit or practical value the reader gains from studying and accepting these ideashe demands a clear point. He also comments that the users (Illuminatis) presence has not essentially demonstrated the value or usefulness of his writings.
thephilosophyforum.com
Who is right and why?
Illuminati presents a philosophical system with consistency and depth his effort deserves academic respect.
However, Outlander has a legitimate objective: he seeks to understand why these philosophical maxims have practical or conceptual value and what their purpose is beyond impressive wordcraft.
Conclusion:
This is not a simple rightwrong dispute. Illuminati offers a framework; Outlander seeks clarification and meaning beyond the aesthetic or metaphysical axis. Both sides may be justified: one at the philosophical level, the other at the level of practical value.
If desired, we can delve into a more practical analysis e.g., what useful conclusions can be drawn, or how these concepts connect to contemporary philosophy or science.
What is infinite about this? Its just one.
Or if its a singularity, what is infinite about it?
Yes, I know what infinity is, its a concept. It describes an idea, how has this got anything to do with a universal primordial undifferentiated singularity, something we know nothing about, or cant explain?
How is it assigned?
Just because it might not seem to make sense that the universe, or existence has an end to it, it doesnt follow that it is unbounded, or endless. We just cant make these conclusions. If so, you will have to justify this conclusion.
Internal in what, the mind? The one?
What you are describing here is something finite, bounded, limited. How do we get from an infinite one, to a finite realm?
Does the one somehow contain finite things, potential?
I have no problem with this, although, as I say this is a description of eternity. Whoever said it is not in a position to conclude that such a thing is strictly boundless, or strictly unlimited in the terms of infinite extent. Which is the consequence of applying infinity to finite space, or time. It leads one to interpret this as describing an infinite space and time, something which results in intellectual absurdities and confusion.
Whereas when eternity, or boundless, or unlimited are used to describe divinity, or existence of the universe. It is accepting transcendence, limitless potentiality, possibility. Ideas which dont lead to these absurdities.
I'm hesitant to put into words, not because I doubt your ability to understand but because I doubt my ability to describe it well. Something about this topic does odd things to my mind, and I end up leaning a bit poetic about it at times.
To some degree I think reality is self-reinforcing, contradictory and recursive, is the best way I can think to put it. There is something instead of nothing, because there is something there. Reality exists because it does. Things are the way they are, because that's the way things are. What seems like a recursive, thought-terminating response is actually the truth of it. It's fascinating to ask the why's and how's, but on a fundamental level, I sometimes think we overthink it.
Perfect truth and knowledge are ultimately unattainable, so we will never run out of new questions, and the answers will never be complete. As none of us is capable of perfect understanding, on some level we all have to accept our imperfect/incomplete truths *as* truth in order to live our lives. I believe this tension between what we internally hold as true and the actual reality of the world around us explains much about humanity as a whole, though I think there are many ways people end up reacting to it.
I also think that's why we ask so many questions we're not capable of understanding the answers to, which only leads to more questions with imperfect answers as we eternally seek the impossible totality of understanding. What drew me to OPs post originally was that I have also had thoughts about the interplay between 1, 0 and infinity. I am not educated enough in math or philosophy to even pretend to know if any of my or OPs thoughts are actually feasible under our current model of the universe, but I can't help but feel some truth to it in my bones, if only in a poetic sense.
Hegelian Dialectics: Being, Nothing, and Becoming
The German idealist philosopher Hegel opens his Science of Logic with a shocking proposition:
B. Nothing (§ 133)
Nothing, pure nothingness; it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is the empty intuiting and thinking itself, like pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determinationor rather absence of determinationand thus altogether the same as pure being.
The origins of space and time are speculations, not facts. A mathematical "space" is a set of "points" and some sort of structure. With two points one may get a measure, I suppose. The transition from the sort of foundational state to what we experience in the real world lies not in the realm of mathematics to the best of my knowledge.
The closest I can come to what you seem to be talking about is the essential singularity e^(1/z) in the complex plane. In every neighborhood of z=0 the function takes on any value an infinite number of times, save perhaps one such value. Sounds like a mystical phenomenon doesn't it?
We dont yet have experimental proof that space is emergent or that spatial integration isnt required, but many leading theories suggest its likely.
- space is being stretched, not expanded.
- this means its actual volume never changed, what we see is not made of space.
- space may not expand outwards, thats impossible.
for these reasons and not only it is still dimensionless and what we empirically witness as space is an internal relations.
So far we know that there was a moment where the symmetry broke, when that happened the universe was supposedly expanding, but thats impossible and it is something that we know for a fact. We dont need to discover something else to explain this.
Speculations about the nature of space go far beyond the well defined parameters of mathematics. You are on a mystical journey.
I just read this again (likely for the first time). I must have glossed over it in the heat of debate.
This reminds me of the Shakespeare quote: "All men are but actors on a stage, they play their parts, and have their entrances and have their exits." (paraphrased)
But while there may be a good amount of truth in the idea that "his experience of himself, his thoughts, and feelings are separate from the rest but is merely a delusion" there remain many reasonable objections and arguments to this blanket assertion.
A person raised from birth in a starving country who knows nothing but war, poverty, and suffering, who sees death and horror daily and becomes accustomed to it, will certainly have a different experience of "himself" and the idea of the world itself than someone raised in wealthy family who's never seen a day of honest work in their life. Or, actually, someone who is mentally deficient or just really "non self-contemplative" (goes through life without a care) versus someone who meticulously examines every thought and aspect of their being. So, one's experience of himself is in fact quite different, depending on the person and circumstances that surround or otherwise affect them.
I've often said, we all have the same base desires, fears, and emotions. You become angry when there is something that frustrates us. We become happy when there is a source that brings us joy, whatever that idea may be, for some it's a child strolling, for others it's something very morbid. But yes, joy is joy. Our brain receives and responds or rather disperses the elements into our body that gives us these base, elemental, and universal feelings (joy, pain, fear, etc.). That much is correct. But one cannot reduce the human experience and life itself into something so simply, some sort of cookie cutter, prepackaged formulae that fits every single individual, every place, every time, regardless of circumstance. Can you? I don't think so.
It's all in good fun. I really enjoy this discussion we've had, and for that I thank you. I apologize for some of my less than intellectual opinions expressed and unwarranted frustrations. I drink a lot. Not really, just, when I do, I tend to keep to myself to avoid... less than moral decisions. And so, the internet, specifically this fine venue I cannot seem to stay away from. :sweat:
I am adding new stuff to the OP whenever someone asks a good question.
Quoting Outlander
Yes, exactly.
Quoting Outlander
The sense of self is not an internal origin but a dynamic interpretation of external inputs.
We are reducing the human experience and everything else down to the bare "minimum" (the building blocks) in order to understand, the same way physics strip away and try to find smaller particles and so on likewise here we do this to understand the system we are in.
If you see A and interpret it as B, where A ? B, are you seeing the object or your brains interpretation?
Quoting myself: "
Every question has a universally correct answer; however, the transmission of this concept to the observers perception is dynamic and depends on their context, experience, and consciousness. The truth does not change, but the subjective access to it does."
You are the sum of your experiences, your body, as far as your memories can reach and so on, the you which now lives in this body is a subjective experience because no single thing you experience is coming from inside you, all your "data" is stored and proccessed by you and coming from the external world.
This external world seems to be a deterministic and quantifiable world, meaning we can measure and predict it. If you take a copy of our universe (this is highly hypothetical, I assume you understand this) and "paste" it elsewhere would you get the same or a different future? And why?
The external world is a system of phenomena and objects. Both objects and phenomena are made of the same thing but phenomena (probably) cant be measured directly without the existence of objects. It is a system of relations which composes things that are not present in the system initially. When you play games you know that the game itself doesnt consist of characters and buildings and what not but it is made of numbers decoded by your computer (put very bluntly). The computer is your body, the game is the experience of life, the bits and zeros are the phenomena and objects and the one playing the game is the One.
If you are open to metaphysical and epistemological exploration and have at least a basic understanding you will understand.
Classical space is typically modeled using Cartesian coordinates:
( x,y ,z )
And physical laws are expressed using Newtons laws of motion within this space:
F= ma
Where F is force and is a phenomenon, an interaction that causes a change in motion. Its not a thing, but a measurable effect (due to the existence of an object, without it we have no measurement).
M is Mass which is an object property, it again cant be measured if we dont have an object along with the phenomena.
A is acceleration and is a phenomena, once again we cant measure it without the object.
This space must start from something, we cant have an ex nihilo appeareance of a universe (or space in this model), wouldnt this system start from the simplest (smallest) imaginable form?
Stay with me now, that simplest imaginable form is that exact singularity Ive been talking about. It didnt have volume in the beggining because you cant have an entire universe appear (e.g. us appearing in 2021 as things were) out of nothing complete with a multitute of "stuff"(e.g. planets) in it.
This exact way the universe started from the simplest possible block of reality, this way every single phenomena is not composed of what it appears to be but appears from a single fundamental block, and I already explained why it must be one.
A few seem defensive or dismissive, likely due to unfamiliarity with Neoplatonic or metaphysical traditions.
Some claim they have an understanding but most of those dont seem to want to have any relation with this.
Next we have people that are on this site for 9 years and never heard of "Apeiron". This is a waste of my time.
It's an old concept, mate. "You" are not proposing anything. You're speaking of concepts that existed long before you, and would exist even if you were never born. You need to understand that. It's not personal, people just don't agree with the idea in the context and "holy light" you attribute to it.
It doesn't mean it's not a sound idea. It doesn't mean it's not right. All those who don't hold the same view you do believe is, there's much more to the world and life and existence than what you currently believe. That's all. It's very simple. Not provocative. Not rude. Just a mere difference in opinion.
If you were so confident and faithful in your idea, you would feel no frustration in others ignoring or condemning it as false, only pity. Unfortunately, every person believes what they do or think is right, otherwise, they would not be doing or thinking it. So the natural biological chain of events occur in one's brain when one's idea of reality is challenged or disregarded, or yes even disproved, refusal to accept evidence to the contrary. Which is not necessarily childlike and illogical, perhaps they're wrong and the evidence they have shown, while factual, will inevitably be superseded by new evidence. This is literally the history of science itself.
You're too emotionally invested in an idea that seems to make emotion and belief irrelevant. People do this all the time for a sense of peace and stability in this world. And for those who can sniff that out, those such as myself, and many other posters here, it just doesn't support the underlying premise. That's all I can say and wish for you to understand as far as those who doubt or simply disagree with what you believe to be true.
You are gaslighting my passion by suggesting that my emotional investment invalidates my position, passion doesnt negate insight.
Youre constantly mentioning "them good folks", "those such as myself" and "many others" implying a silent majority that agrees with you, a classic appeal to what exactly, the majority?
And then you mention the evolution of science to undermine metaphysical conviction, as if metaphysics are subject to the same empirical debunking.
And the real irony is that you accuse me of emotional bias while being clearly emotionally reactive to my metaphysics.
Cant imagine how hard life must be in that drunk head of yours.
I've done nothing of the sort. We call this the classic 'Qualia' argument. One can have 1,001 views of how we process the 'color' that is commonly referred to as 'red.' One can have a million views as to what the experience of watching a sunset is. It's no longer about right or wrong, it's true to you, and that's fine for you. But when you expect it to be something of worth to another, it requires pure logistical or otherwise practical, feasible, and pragmatic content. At the end of the day, red is red, and a sunset is a sunset. It does, in fact, have a virtually infinite number of definitions or meanings to other persons. I'm simply underscoring the fact you don't seem to have any personal conviction or distinct definition of the term that hasn't already existed and would exist whether you were involved in it or not.
If you bring new truth to the world, then good. This truth, that has become independent of you and who you are, should be allowed to benefit the world, and you sitting by silently rewarded with nothing but the gratitude that any good person should have by doing so. People who seek recognition, power, and the like, are often the least who deserve it, the worst of the worst. And if this is not you, fine. My (highly warranted) scrutiny is simply misplaced, and you should think nothing of it. Yet you do. Why is that? Only you can answer. And I doubt it will be anything close to what you reply here for all to see.
Quoting Illuminati
Buddy, I don't care about you or your passion. (I'm just kidding they just teach us to say that in law enforcement). But seriously, let me make this quite simple. This is a philosophy forum. We discuss, debate, attack, and praise ideas. Not people. For all intents and purposes, you don't even exist. Can your ego understand that? If not, you're in an arena high above your current level of ability, shall we say. And it can be dangerous if you continue to dwell here.
Quoting Illuminati
I can't even get drunk anymore these days, honestly. Ah, I almost miss those days. Almost. Nothing like waking up in your underwear at a place you don't remember falling asleep at to scare you straight. I'm a strict beer man these days. Nothing more. Nothing less. :grin:
I mean furthermore, let's look at what a random person would gather from this little interaction we had. First, you know nothing about me other than I mentioned I had a drink last night. And this small bit of knowledge, in your mind, feels it necessary to attack me as some sort of habitual offender when in reality all you know is that I did one thing one time. This is what your so-called philosophy and view of the world has led you to. Misery. Hostility. Just, everything mankind wishes to avoid. Attacking people at the slightest reason to do when the slightest bit of resource or "ammunition" is available. It just doesn't support your argument if you're so right yet remain so petty, aggressive, and hostile toward someone who, supposedly, by your claim, is just wrong, ignorant, and mistaken. Good people help people who are lost and need guidance. And instead, you attack them. Why? I'll tell you why. Because It's a disease. A plague. This is what your so-called truth and belief causes you to be like? Hard pass, mate. Hard pass. I disagree fully. Wordsmithing or even right or wrong or not, if this is you and how you respond to those who question and wish to know truth, it should be banned from all public venue and burned in a pile as the rubbish it is. Real talk.
On a serious note, once you abandon this nonsense, may your soul, if there is such a thing, be saved. I cannot wait until the final realm, where all of us, not just you, or I, but all of us, are free from the illusions and lies that seem so truthful and permanent in this realm we call life and reality. :halo:
In all seriousness, OP. You are loved. By me, if no one else. I hope you remember this. :heart:
Thanks for the offer, but I may be too old to jump into such a complex & comprehensive work of philosophical art. I'm currently skimming the summary of Page 13 & 14. I may have a few questions and comments later.
So, far it looks compatible with my own musings on the First Cause & Prime Mover & Chaos of Plato & Aristotle*1. A simple but vague explanation of what-caused-the-Big-Bang is "Infinite Potential". But some on this forum don't believe in anything that is not Actual, including Zero.
If I was not so accustomed to it, the impolite & irrational & dogmatic responses on this thread would embarrass me. But OneInfiniteZero is not allowed (taboo) in the immanent belief system of Materialism, with its multiplicity of finite things. So, what you are talking about sounds absurd & blasphemous to them. :smile:
PS___ My religious upbringing introduced be to a few words of Biblical Greek translated into 17th century English. So, I would not be able to read the original version of your work.
*1. https://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf
Separation is an illusion of the mind, we are all One light fragmented into many colours.
All object and phenomena are made of the same original building block.
Objects: "Still" light which allows us to measure phenomena (you cant measure a phenomena without an object, Force,Mass,Acceleration,pH and so on are phenomena, which you cant measure without an object). One is defined by the other, they dont "exist" on their own.
Phenomena: Universal laws that allow us to "measure"(do not forge that this is an illusion and a subjective interpetation of the One, it cant be known fully and accuratelly) the One without an external point of reference (you cant measure something if there isnt something else to measure it "against", meaning if you have only an object A you cant measure it, there is no point of reference- think of it as measuring space without any objects with properties- not even a ruler and a Gnomon exist in this world, how are you going to measure something if the measurement itself is non existent?).
Measurement: We can measure something for a few reasons, the world is deterministic, formed (finite) and consists of things that have something common, that is as an example we can measure two objects that have mass, energy, dimensions and etc, what we measure is the mass(and so on) itself which is present in both objects. So what are we measuring? We are quantifying a common quality and determining results in a finite universe.
Infinite: In contrast to finite it does not have a form, as formless it is not quantifiable nor deterministic. Non-deterministic environments are Chaotic, it is impossible to measure or determine or predict.
"white" light:
This light includes all colours but is neither one yet all at the same time. The fragmentation happens naturally and is a repeating phenomenon, meaning the Tetraktys will always be formed. The Tetraktys is the method by which the One light manifests the finite. The Tetraktys consists of four rays, Monad, Dyad, Triad and Tetras, each is a unique step in creation. Souls are created in Trinity (Triad), objects in Tetras and phenomena appear(or rather are first "witnessed", in reality these phenomena themselves seem to be eternal) in various steps, for example the law of Duality appears in Dyad (Two).
Duality: We start with a simple unique Monad which is the foundational block, it consists of nothing but itself, that is there may be no diferentiation within it, in order for it to appear as many it must relate to itself. To achieve that initially it was divided (subjectivelly speaking, this in reality is an illusion as the One is indivisible and the ultimate reality) into two equal and opposite parts. These two parts are the reason for the first diferentiation and movement. The movement is self relational and is contained within the One. Meaning the One Infinite Zero divided itself, within itself, in relation to itself; but dont forget that this is an illusion, the ultimate reality is unchanging.
Whole: Speaking of a "creator" we cant possibly say that the creation itself is separate from the One because there cant be something which is not part of the whole, as the whole is all there is, something being separate from the rest would mean there is something that which makes up the border between these two wholes, making them two separate wholes. In our case the only border we can have is absolute nothing, this may not be. As such we say that God and creation are one. However, the sum of creation on its own does not describe the One, neither does One describe only this creation as it is unbound unlike the material world.
Universe: Duality is one of the major phenomenon and it is the first main reason why the world is Ordered and not Chaotic, the two parts I mentioned earlier are phenomenon, they set the two poles of everything that exists (every single thing that exists has two sides (ending and beggining)), middle point being the absolute neutralization of both poles. However due to other forces/phenomena these two sides do not merge but synthesize a third moving part in between the two poles.
Trinity (my own quote):
"The Bipolar Autonomous Triad, with its illusory identity projection as relational uniqueness, formed through the synthetic coexistence of its two Poles, is defined within the boundaries validated by the Dyad.
It can move independently within these boundaries and possesses self-determination. This self-determination creates the impression of freedom, while in reality it depends on the limits of each inner psycho-simulation.
The Bipolar Triad, with its illusory personality, as a constant of the system, defines the function of the world; from this, Soul, Mind, and Matter will always emerge from the inner relations of the Monad. The soul is one of the many manifestations of the Monad; it is not something different, nor separate (from the Monad). The soul is the natural way in which the Monad acquires a more stable and strict identity.
The Bipolar Triad cannot transcend itself. It constitutes a system of inherent self-referentiality, whose functionality is entirely determined by its own conceptual boundaries. The fields within which it can develop movement are dynamic; however, the presence of these boundaries themselves remains static and necessary. Without the existence of boundaries, mobility becomes conceptually impossible, since there is no determination of position or direction without the boundaries that serve as reference points.
Every localized manifestation of the Triad requires a frame of reference that is, at least two distinct points within a stable framework of relation in order to determine the recognitive manifestation between the two poles. Any of the systems poles cannot bear an autonomous identity: its identity is relational and dependent on the existence of an opposing unit.
Thus, the Triad constitutes a structure of self-limitation the very need to activate its potentials requires the establishment of boundaries, through which the determination of relation, direction, and energy becomes possible. Outside this defined structure, the Triad ceases to have functional substance.
The Triad, as a morphogenetic and relational field, is fully defined by the system within which it operates; it does not possess point-like autonomy, but only relational existence. The possibility of movement or direction presupposes a field of differentiation and therefore at least a minimal bipolar reference system. A singular point, without distinction, is spatially and mentally inert.
Under this view, the Triad acts as a mechanism of conscious feedback: each of its manifestations constitutes a recognitive process of itself through opposition, differentiation, and direction within a self-limiting framework."
[b]"The One is made from all things, and all things come from the One."
Saint Heraclitus, fragment DK B10[/b]
Things have become a bit derailed. Let's keep things on the topic of the OP rather than the poster who wrote it.
@Illuminati
If you respond to off-topic posts, you may end up derailing the thread yourself.
I'll delete anything off-topic from now on.
That's a poetic metaphor of how the One became Many, or the Singularity became a Cosmos. Here's a recent blog post*1 to indicate that I have been thinking along similar lines, but in different terms*2. My background is more physical than philosophical. So, my metaphors are often derived from Physics instead of Metaphysics. :nerd:
*1. Light is Enformy :
In the Enformationism thesis, I have concluded that Light itself is the universal reference field, as well as the basic form of causal Energy. Hence, Light is the universal measuring stick of all things. Another way to look at it is to view light-energy as the fabric of space-time, as it interweaves all matter into a universal system. Light is the background reference for everything in the world, because, wherever you look, light is already there. But, its invisible until detected by a sentient sensor, such as the human eye.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page48.html
*2. Enformy :
The organizing principle of the universe. A postulated natural force/principle that opposes Entropy in that it causes an evolutionary tendency toward order, and away from chaos.
Note : Scientists call it Negentropy.
Quoting Illuminati
My philosophical worldview is also Holistic, as opposed to Reductionist. Are you familiar with the 1920s book by Jan Smuts?*3 : Holism and Evolution : The Synthetic Tendency in the Universe.
I have to be careful about using the term "Creator" on the forum, because it typically brings to mind the creation myth of Genesis. Personally, to avoid bringing religion into a philosophical exploration, I often refer to the Big Bang creation myth. Which leaves the "who" & "why" questions unanswered and open to hypothesizing. :smile:
*3. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living beings.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html
PS___ The 17th & 18th century Illuminati were supposed to be opposed to the Catholic Church, and enlightened by the emergence of empirical Science. Does that historical ideology have anything to do with your 21st century philosophy?
Being observed or not does not invalidate its existence because it simply exists when it is seen, for this reason it is existent without being observed too. What we observe is not the light itself but its interaction with objects. We may look and see light everywhere but that does not mean it exists everywhere. If light is the fabric of everything else it shouldnt be composed of something else, yet it is. For this reason it may not be a fundamental essence. Please elaborate.
Quoting Gnomon
This is true in a way but shouldnt Enformy mean both negentropy and entropy since these two are one phenomena?
Quoting Gnomon
I dont read books and I have no idea.
Quoting Gnomon
Quoting Illuminati
Thats why I used quote marks. I interpreted that you use this word so I did likewise.
Quoting Gnomon
Never heard of that.
Can you explain in terms of physics if space itself requires spatial integration (meaning a pre-existing or newly created space) and if so how does this volume appear if nothing can be created from nothing according to science? If this volume is pre-existent how is new space being added? We know that space stretches, meaning space is not being added. If this space is pre-existent how was it formed if there was no matter or anything at all("back then") which is now contained in space?
There is no such thing as "space", "light", or "matter".
Quoting Illuminati
In physics, Light is described as a quantum phenomenon, and the quanta of light are called Photons (packets of energy). But that materialistic definition is true only for convenience in mathematical calculations. However, Einstein equated causal Energy with measurable Mass and tangible Matter.
For philosophical purposes though, Energy is essential to everything that changes, including Life and Mind. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began from nothing (no matter) as a burst of causal Energy, suspiciously similar to the "let there be light" in Genesis. But that raw Energy necessarily included Information (natural laws) to guide the processes of Evolution. My term for that combination of Causation & Direction is EnFormAction*1 : the power to transform, to evolve.
Therefore, Light (energy) is the metaphorical essence & fabric of the universe, both Matter & MInd. If you are interested in an amateur theory-of-everything, my Information-based thesis & blog "elaborate" further, in great detail. :nerd:
PS___ Since Light-Energy is essential & fundamental, it is not composed of "something else". Ultimately, physical Energy is actualized from immaterial Potential. For Materialists though, Potential does not exist, because it is immaterial (not yet real).
*1. EnFormAction :
[i]# Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Philosophically, it's Schopenhauer's Will & Idea. So EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
# All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
# The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Quoting Illuminati
Enformy*2 is my coined term for what Schrodinger called "negentropy", referring to Free Energy that is available to do work. By contrast, Entropy is Wasted Energy that is no longer able to cause constructive change. Therefore, I consider Entropy to be Negative (disorder, disorganization), and Enformy to be Positive (order, organization) forces in Evolution. They are mirror images (thesis/anti-thesis) of "one phenomena" : Causation. :smile:
*2. Enformy :
[i]In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
#. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
#. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
#. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. [ see ENTROPY at right ; Extropy ][/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Quoting Illuminati
"Nothing from nothing" is true within the physical/material universe. But the Big Bang theory logically implies that Something (our everything material world) was created from no-thing (some unknowable transcendent Potential)*3*4. Physicists typically stop their researches at that space-time boundary. But philosophers are not bound by the requirement for empirical evidence. Anyway, the pre-bang-potential is not Real (no space, no time, no matter), but Ideal & speculative (no practical applications). Hence, useful only for philosophical argumentation. :cool:
Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance.
*3. Cosmos from Chaos :
The Big Bang theory describes the origin of the universe, suggesting it expanded from an extremely hot, dense state, not from nothing. While often described as "something from nothing," the theory actually posits that all of space, time, matter, and energy originated from that initial state, not that they came from a pre-existing void.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=big+bang+something+from+nothing
*4. Cosmos from Chaos :
In Plato's cosmology, as presented in the Timaeus, the universe (cosmos) is not created from nothing but rather emerges from a pre-existing state of chaos . . . . .
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+cosmos+from+chaos
Note --- Chaos, here, refers to Plato's realm of Ideal Forms, that are not Real, but only Potential, until Actualized by the Demiurge.
This is not philosophy vs Science, Science has its roots in Metaphysics and Theology and Epistemology among others. Our Grand Masters went the other way around, understood the One to understand the universe. And so can we.
Quoting Gnomon
"The One alone is true. All else-mind, soul, matter-are emanations within the field of Its own contemplation."
OIZ
As a fundamentalist I aknowledge only the One as the ultimate Truth. The Demiurge is part of the One, not the other way around.
The universe is a single, visible living being, encompassing within itself all living beings that are naturally akin to it. - Timaeus, 30b
But can that which does not exist have anything pertaining or belonging to it? Of course not. Then the One has no name, nor is there any description or knowledge or perception or opinion of it... It is neither named nor described nor thought of nor known, nor does any existing thing perceive it. - Saint Parmenides, 138b-c
Quoting Gnomon
Then why dont you agree that space itself among everything else is the realization of the potential and this potential is completelly fake, space is not made of space, colour is not made of colour, do you see where Im getting with this? We think space has 3 dimensions and time 1, in reality space has no dimensions and time is not linear. The reasoning to this Is included in my previous messages, ask me to elaborate if needed.
In essence only the One is the fundamental Truth because it is perfect, unchanging (keep in mind each of these titles attributed to the One are defined in detail), self contained, self referencing, totallity with no external point of reference and perfect (its missing nothing(it contains all potential))?
We are getting there now.
What you are describing is the one about which nought may be said.
Example of Henology in Practice
Imagine a philosopher contemplating the nature of reality and concluding:
All multiplicity and diversity in the world emanates from a single, ineffable source, the One- which is beyond being, beyond thought, and beyond description.
This is a henological approach. Instead of analyzing what things are(ontology), or how we know them(epistemology), henology asks:
What is the nature of unity itself?
How does everything derive from the One?
Can we experience union with the One (henosis)?
In Saint Plotinus Enneads, he writes:
The One is all things and no one of them; the source of all things is not any one of them.
This expresses the henological idea that the One is beyond categories, yet is the origin of all.
-Punshhh
But you have said a lot about the one about which nought may be said.
Isnt that a contradiction?
Quoting Punshhh
What I am doing is called Henology, I have already responded to you on that.
Quoting Punshhh
I also have already adressed this question before it was even asked, inside the book, here in the OP and in comments, I am quoting myself more than once for the same quote but since you missed it :
Quoting Illuminati
My philosophy leans much more toward empirical Science & Ontology than to mysticism or spiritualism or Henology. I also tend to be skeptical of ideas that are outlandish & unconventional. But for philosophical learning, I try to defer judgement and keep an open mind, in order to broaden my worldview.
I explore some of those far-out notions only out of intellectual curiosity, not religious motivation. Since non-empirical entities cannot be proven True, in the empirical sense, I don't concern myself with their big-T Truth. I'm currently reading a big book that begins with a review of the current state of Science, but then delves into Natural Magic & Shamanic & Psychedelic adventures in "other dimensions". I have no personal experience with mind-altering drugs, so their exploits in parallel worlds with transcendent Intelligences & Mother Universes are treated as creative Fiction or Fantasy, not mundane Facts.
I also read the "bible" of Scottish Rite Freemasonry by 33rd degree Albert Pike. But I am not a mason. I found it interesting, but not relevant to my mundane world. Although they use the metaphor of Great Architect, the Mason's God seems more like your OneInfiniteZero than the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. All I know about the Grand Masters of the Illuminati is rumors & conspiracy theories. So, I'm not likely to accept anything the GMs say as sublime Truth. :smile:
Quoting Illuminati
Yes, I see where you are going with such negations of mundane reality : toward Idealism & Spiritualism & Neo-Platonism. But I am much more comfortable with my familiar "fake" world. I explore such otherworldly realms only to put my this-worldly experiences into a mid-range context between tangible Materialism and intangible Idealism. Platonic Ideals & Transcendent Deities inform my worldview on the margins. But I always return to my warm cave with a fire casting shadows on the wall, where I can see the space-time silhouettes with my own eyes. :joke:
Apologies for not having read all of your posts, or your book. But unfortunately all I keep seeing is you saying things about the one about whom nought can be said. Even the apophatic approach is doing this, by saying things about it by negation. Literally nothing can be said, other than to indicate that it has something to do with a unity of all things.
I happen to be a mystic who uses the apophatic approach all the time and I certainly dont say anything about this. I simply defer to thoughts about our local God, gods, demiurge, universe, realm etc. That this is no concern for me.
I suppose there is a role for explaining where we project the fruits of human intellect onto such subjects. But that is not saying anything about it as such, but rather about us.
All that it is required to be said is that nought can be said.
You are literally saying something about the One(that nought can be said). This is not the apophatic method.
Everything that I have said so far holds ground and you know it, it is Simple (composed only of Itself), Unique (there is no other, it is singular and alone) and Infinite (has no defined form).
And to explain why this is not the apophatic method:
Youre saying the apophatic method is the* only way, youre making a comparative claim, not necessarily apophatic.
When youre saying even the method itself cannot be defined or privileged, then youre applying apophasis to the method itself, which is a kind of meta-apophasis.
Its like saying "no- we cant discuss it because the only way to discuss it(more accuratelly-or at all) is a non-discussion, meaning we can have no discussion on it", basically invalidating every single point without an argument.
Light requires matter to be observed, there isnt a single phenomena which can be measured on its own. What you measure is the effect of phenomena on matter, not the phenomena itself. So what you measure is matter+phenomena, not matter or phenomena.
P.S.: The "Illuminati" youre probably referring to (there are multiple such groups) are irrelevant to this discussion. I have never read the bible nor will.
Im not the only one.
Yes, Im not denying that, with the use of infinity as you define it here. It all makes perfect sense and I have had a lot of these thoughts and contemplations myself over the years.
I think though that we must accept at some point that whatever we say about it, or deduce, or work out. It cant be tested, or proved and might not bear any relation to the truth about the matter. Because the reality might be totally different to what we are able to understand, might be entirely inconceivable to a creature like us, might be too obvious, or hidden in someway. Or that we can only talk about the things we have evolved to understand, in the world we find ourselves in. How to survive in an ecosystem and organise ourselves into groups, tribes.
Im not trying to shut down debate, or say we shouldnt even talk about it. We can talk about it and about the way we talk about it etc. On the understanding that we dont know anything about it, other than what makes sense from our relatively insignificant position.
Personally I am more concerned with the understanding of existence through other forms or learning, knowing and understanding than the intellectual reasoning done by philosophers. More in the realms of meditation, communion, direct experience and developing affinities with nature.
I come to the forum for some light relief and to enjoy and exercise some intellectual rigour.
I only adopted this position once you had agreed with me that nought can be said. If we are both in agreement about something, then we can take it as read, to assume it to be true for the sake of argument.
We, or I cant be sure at all whether we are saying anything about it, or if were talking about it all the time, but just dont realise it.
This is a recognised technique, mainly adopted in Zen Buddhism in the form of a koan. For example;
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
The idea is to make one think harder, or realise the impossibility of answering some questions, or that the truth is not to be found in intellectualisation, but in the self, the being of the self, somehow.
Yes I know it looks like that, but as I say, you did agree with me that nought can be said, didnt you? If you didnt then fine, I might be wrong to say that nought can be said. Im perfectly happy to accept that. Provided there is some rationale behind it.
Appeal to popularity(?). Not a valid argument. Ive said in this comment section multiple times that what I say has been analyzed by generations of philosophers yet nobody took that as a valid argument, so even if the appeal is towards a reasonable class of people it still does not stand(and not only because other people dont accept an appeal as reasonable but this alone is more than enough).
Only 1 out of 10 physicists that I had this discussion was aware that space is not consistent of space, I doubt that the "others" have any say about the One and this discussion. Do you really believe that most humans will understand even the simplest of the terms that we are discussing? Even a philosophy forum as this one hasnt offered any responces of value besides mentioning what I already knew(not bragging) and have thought of multiple times.
Dont think of this OIZ is a "draft idea", it is almost complete (regarding itself, it may be viewed as a complete work) and I have not found a single idea that contradicts itself in the entire work. If you do, let me know. But this whole discussion of whether we can define it or not is tiring me as I said multiple times these definitions are not absolute, yet are true.
Quoting Punshhh
Then you are contradicting yourself, in one responce youre saying that nothing can be said yet you agree it is infinite and have been contemplating on it, which one is it? You basically said that A=B and B=C yet A does not equal C. It is either infinite and this information is common, valid based on reason and perception, or its not.
Quoting Punshhh
I have already covered this as well by saying that yes,we can observe phenomena by their effect on objects, states by observing phenomena and objects. And yes, we can "observe"(subjectivelly) the One by observing phenomena,objects and states. You can observe the first split into two(law of duality) in science- that alone is more than sufficient; but its not the only thing we can find out in physics about the One.
Quoting Punshhh
This is exactly it, its hidden almost as if on purpose, nothing besides the One is composed of itself (time and space are the result of the effect of phenomena on objects). There is no such thing as "space", this is a ridiculous notion and I call any scientist to prove that space is composed of space. Ive seen many people call themselves scientists and claim that space is being "created" from nothing, on science dedicated pages. Yeah.
Quoting Punshhh
Exactly, if you feel like it, follow their method, that however is not a valid interpretation and my OP is about the One. Not-talking about the One is not part of the discussion as me talking about the One means I do not recognize that method and I am not going to not talk about the One.
Quoting Punshhh
You have already agreed that it is simple (composed only of itself), infinite (has no form, no beggining and no end) and unique (it is one, there is no second), which part of you exactly wants to not go further and why? Because we can deduct more out of these few simple titles. why wouldnt we? Just because we know that it is undefined? So you want us to ignore the thing(our reason) which brought us to this conclusion just because of this one conclusion?
From my introduction:
"It is immortal, eternal, zero in its sum, infinite and motionless. I call it One Infinite Zero- you may call it something else.But, whatever we say, it will never be enough."
The One is the sum of all but the whole is not sufficient on its own to describe the One.
Quoting Punshhh
Well in that case: The One is All. It seemingly divided into matter and anti-matter, seemingly divided itself into gravity and dark energy (two sides of the same phenomena), in reality everything is the One, everything comes from the One and all returns to the One.Quoting Punshhh
Yes, my quote earlier stands, everything is the One yet you cant describe the One by describing the whole(everything).
Quoting Punshhh
There is no sound of one hand clapping as it does not clap but itself, therefore there is no clapping, for this reason it is an invalid question and a subjective interpetation, we dont do that here.
The self is the One (there is no "Punshhh", only the One). In a very subjective and easy to misunderstood example I used to say: "There is but one "soul": the One.".
Intellectualisation is required to know one-self.
Zen Buddhism is an easy approach if you want to understand the One, you understand some of the titles (uknowable- undefined- infinite) and then claim that any other title is contradictory to these titles (included these themselves).
Quoting Punshhh
P.S.: I knew you were going to referrence Buddhism the moment I read "Nought can be said".
"I am the Light, I am the Darkness too"
"I am the One, I am the Two too"
OIZ 2
Did I answer this question or not? The rationale is that we can do it and possibly should, the why we should is also included in the book, it is the return to the One. There is nothing besides ourselves stopping us from doing so.
Now that I am aware of the apophatic "OIZ" concept, what's the next step? Am I required to worship a formless featureless non-entity? Am I expected to join a Faith Community? Should I change my errant life in some mysterious ways? Can I become One with "OIZ"? These are serious questions.
In my post-retirement philosophical explorations I have come across many of the religious & spiritual & mystical concepts*1 mentioned in the OP. But so far, I haven't been sufficiently motivated to do anything different from my mundane daily activities. So my interest in surreal spirituality is not much more than child-like curiosity about what other people believe.
The book I'm currently reading says that a few intrepid adventurers have accessed the infinite dimensions and "diamond light" of The Divine or The Absolute by using psychedelic drugs. Like you, the author seems to possess an encyclopedic knowledge of esoteric information, but with a focus on 21st century science & philosophy & psychonaut "masters". Yet I remain stolidly locally-lucid and drug-free. Does that mean I am not a candidate for enlightenment? :smile:
*1. So What Is The Perennial Philosophy, According to Aldous Huxley? Huxley identifies a few basic tenets from which the perennial philosophy is composed: There is a transcendent divine an eternal ultimate reality. There is an immanent divine a ground of being and spiritual nature within the world.
https://medium.com/skeptical-spirituality/book-review-the-perennial-philosophy-by-aldous-huxley-af4584816dde
Oh yes these are serious questions, it is not an apophatic OIZ concept, I have said that-and I repeat- I do not follow the apophatic way strictly to make things easier.
You are asking what is the moral ground of this all if that exists and if theres something to be done based on the revelation, however the fact remains that you first must understand what OIZ stands for, then you will automatically know what the right thing to do is.
But to make it easy I will say that the right thing to do is to start treating others as an extension of the same thing that you are. You wouldnt want to hurt yourself right? Why would you want to hurt a part of yourself which is self concious? A key concept in this is the concept of Karma as described by me, that is the reaction to ones action, according to myself "you" (The One that is) will(has) lived through your life and mine too, so if you hurt me you(the One) will experience that as well.
The One means that there is no other One, it is Unique and Simple. It is composed only of itself and it is Alone and All-one (everything and everyone).
Quoting Gnomon
Which part exactly is surreal and not based on reason?
Quoting Gnomon
Like I mentioned there is no such thing as "dimensions", this is an illusion caused by the mind (twice, once in the world we see and again when being interpreted by the brain). I dont understand how there can be infinite dimensions, dimensions must be either finite either 0 in either case(me being right, me being wrong).
By implying that "Locally lucid" youre saying that you admit the only reality which is true is the one that you can empirically experience(right?), but I have said it once and Ill say it again, what you experience is not composed of itself and this is easily provable.
No comment on the drugs besides:I think it is obvious that you dont need them. They tend to truly help only in rare cases and in most scenarios this leads to errors that require a psychiatrist to fix.
F=ma which is the simplified version of the equation is a triangular relation between objects and phenomena. The object here is m, a is a property of mass which is caused by phenomena, F is the quantifiable subjective interpretation of that relation(there is no such thing as F in the real world, we measure various components of the same thing and their relation equals F but that doesnt mean theres a "Force" equivalent of a law or force of nature.
So, if there is no such thing as F in the world what is it made of? mass and acceleration right? Mass is an object and acceleration is a property of mass.
What gives properties to objects?
-Phenomena.
-What types of phenomena?
-Gravity which causes space to curve(this must be expanded on further to be fully understood).
-What is space?
-Its the result of the internal differentiation of the objective reality expressed as a dimensional geometry. In other words space is the result of objects existing in relation to one another.
-Explain.
-In the beggining everything was non-deterministic(Chaos) and existed as One thing, then it was determined as specific and separate things. Those things are the relation of the same fundamental essence in relation to itself. Gravity is part of the phenomena that played a role here, there was no space till then. Space is what was "left" "in between" the One which was divided internally(with no external point of reference).
OneInfinityZero are abstractions that refer to what we do not see & sense (that which doth not appear*1) in physical reality. So descriptions of such notions are necessarily negations of what we do see & sense. Hence, we can only discuss them with metaphors drawn from the real material world : Unity vs Multiplicity ; Infinity vs Finitude ; Zero vs Instance. Most philosophical dialogs are composed of such abstractions & metaphors. What is an easier "way" to follow OIZ, than to imagine negations of material things? Direct experience, via apparition, meditation or psychedelics? :smile:
*1. 1 John 3:2, which states, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." One, Infinite, Dimensionless . . . .
Quoting Illuminati
My religious training summarized the universal "moral ground" in the words of Jesus : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Most world religions & philosophies agree on that basic rule of human interaction.
The fatalistic notion, that what you do will eventually be done to you, only makes sense to those who believe in reincarnation. I don't. So, the assumption that you only get one chance to learn & practice morality works better with the Golden Rule.
Yes. The Hebrews were told by Moses that Yahweh --- formerly a local storm god --- was henceforth the One Infinite Eternal God, and to worship no other gods (finite material idols) above Yahweh. But humans seem to instinctively prefer more humanoid space-time deities. Hence the Catholic paradox of one God in three persons . . . . and dozens of saints. :wink:
Quoting Illuminati
That may be true in the infinite "OIZ" non-dimension. But in the real world, things are knowable in various dimensions, depending on how you measure them. For the human mind --- here in the cave-world of Platonic illusions --- what is immeasurable (infinite) is unknowable and meaningless, hence we measure them with metaphors & negations.
Apparently, you are the escapee, who has returned to tell us benighted souls about a better, realer world out there in the great beyond. I have used similar analogies & metaphors in my own speculations. So, I'm not mocking you, I'm just not waiting for the all-powerful all-knowing aliens to come down and free us slaves from bondage to matter. :sad:
Quoting Illuminati
I have also used Plato's model of a Cosmos from Chaos as a metaphor of how the material world came into being. And it's possible that such Infinite Potential is still out there, waiting for this world to burn itself up. But for my little pea brain, it's just a metaphor. And I don't know how to live in a metaphor. :cool:
I am very old. I apologize, but when I read something like this I tend to fall asleep. Is this supposedly enlightening? Is there a Zen moment of Aha!! ? Why do you write something like this over and over? Does meditation help making this pronouncement astounding?
Finally, why is this on the forum page and not in the Lounge? Moderators?
You are going off topic because you have no arguments. I was expecting a smarter answer from someone who has been on this forum for so many years.
Zero distances: In the beginning, all distances between points in the universe were zero; every point was "in the same place." Likewise gravity, nuclear weak and nuclear strong, and electromagnetism were one force as well. The first one to "detach" was gravity.
The big bang was not an explosion that occurred at some point within a pre-existing void, but a simultaneous expansion of space itself.
Homogeneity and isotropy: The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale, which aligns with the idea that it began from a unified state. And that state is-as I said many times- homogenous, simple (composed only of itself) and makes up the whole that exists..
What does this mean? There was no distinction.
In physics, saying that the early universe was non-deterministic means that events did not unfold in a strictly predictable way based on prior causes. Instead, the behavior of matter and energy was governed by quantum mechanics, where outcomes are probabilistic rather than certain. This implies that, at the beginning of the universe, fundamental processes occurred with elements of randomness, not strict causality.
?he universe, in its earliest state, was a unified entity with no internal differentiation, in the sense that it was composed only of itself, without distinct parts, structures, or separations.
In physics, simplicity doesnt just mean lack of complexity. It also involves how much information is needed to describe a system. The early universe may have been uniform, but it was also extremely dense and energetic, governed by quantum laws that allow for uncertainty and fluctuations.
So while the universe may have started as a homogeneous and isotropic whole, it was a dynamic, high-energy state with the potential for immense complexity.
cosmic singularity for anyone interested.
Quoting Gnomon
Are we speaking the same language now? You seemed to ignore my arguments and just repeating the same thing, so I(seemingly) changed the field on which we discuss.
Chaos (lack of distinction, not deterministic)
Simplicity (One thing which is composed of itself)
0 dimensional entity (Distances are not real-Ill get to that in a sec)
the big bang (beggining of Two, or the great split)
The One (lack of distiction, Chaos, infinite, simple and unique)
The universe cannot expand "outward" because, according to physics, there is no external reference point or boundary outside of it. The universe is not expanding into a pre-existing space; rather, space itself is stretching. This means that distances between points within the universe are increasing, but there is no external space into which it expands. Thus space is not made of actual space.
If the universe is stretching the way physics describe(not outwards but "inwards"), space is not composed of space but rather the effect of phenomena on matter.
Astute of you. True. How does one argue against the magic of "0IZ" ?
I was referring to you, who says lots of things about the one and then says they are true etc.
I said it makes sense, not that I agreed with it. I remain open minded on the issue.
Google Koan
You agreed with me that nought can be said about the one and then continued saying things about the one, claimed they are true and said here in this passage, that we can say things about the one.
In order to have a rational discussion, you have to adopt a position, or stance on an issue and stick to it. So that your interlocutor can critique, or agree with it. This does not mean you cant change your mind, or approach in the discussion, but if you do, you should provide an explanation for it.
This all sounds great, they are good ideas and pretty much everyone here would agree with the gist of it and already knew about it before you arrived. But I havent seen anything new here. These ideas might be new and profound to an ordinary person in the street. But youve come to a philosophy forum where people discuss, analyse, critique and rip apart ideas like this all day long. What did you expect?
By using reasonable arguments. None provided so far.
So my answer stands, there is no hand clapping as that requires a second hand.
Quoting Punshhh
Congratulations, then we have a similar understanding of the same thing, maybe focus on that subject instead of asking the same questions? You havent asked why/how the One was split, you didnt ask what the Trinity is and how is it eternal if only the One is eternal like I said, instead you asked me to define specifically terms which I did, we talk about the One because everything that exists is the One.
People with a philosophical background.
Yes. That's how cosmologists typically describe the Big Bang. But it's easier for ordinary humans to picture it as a metaphorical explosion of something from nothing : perhaps a "pre-existing void" of un-actualized Potential, similar to vacuum energy.
Besides, it's difficult for us to imagine anything in the absence of Space-Time as a background against which to measure it. The BB theory is an attempt to describe "the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy as we know them".
In the Everything image below, the flash of light is the BB, and the expanding time-cone --- segment of a sphere --- is space-time-matter-energy-as-our-material-bodies-know-them. The black background could be No-thing/No Distinction, or it could be One-Infinite-Zero, or it could be the saucy abode of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster ; since we have no way of knowing what might exist outside the boundaries of space-time-matter-energy. But we can conjecture from what we do know. How do you know? :joke:
Quoting Illuminati
A common definition of the Singularity*1 describes it as-if all the matter & energy of our present universe was compressed into a sub-atomic spec of space-time, hence "infinite density" stuff with no empty space, and no room for motion or change. Again, most of us can only imagine such a concept in space-time-matter terms. In the Singularity Graph below, the actual vs possible area under-the-red-line-but-outside-the-box is also outside of space-time, hence immeasurable & unknowable . . . . except by pure speculation of what's Possible. Which depends on your definition of Potential.
But. for my Information-theoretic thesis, I like to describe the Singularity as a computer program for the evolution of a physical universe. The contents of the Singularity are immaterial non-dimensional Information, i.e. abstract ideas or mathematical ratios. Presumably, the source of that Information was a Programmer, existing only in a Platonic sense outside of the space-time bubble "as we know it". Of course, that's only a metaphor or allegory derived from human experience with a finite material world : as we know it. :smile:
*1. The ontological status of the cosmological singularity, a concept within the Big Bang theory, is a topic of ongoing debate. It refers to the initial state of the universe, where density and spacetime curvature are thought to be infinite. While mathematically described, its physical reality and implications for our understanding of the universe are unclear, especially concerning the validity of physical laws at that point
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=The+Ontological+Status+of+the+Cosmological+Singularity
EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING
SINGULARITY GRAPH
You mean the sacred nature of OIZ ? This is a fundamental truth? This sounds more like a cult.
One can appreciate the theories about the origins of the universe without worshiping them.
I said that the universe in the beggining had no time and space, you said thats my own theory while that is commonly agreed upon. Im not even going to waste a single moment proving to you why. As a mathematician you should know.
Quoting my question just in case you forgot
Quoting Illuminati
I also said that the universe started from something that we cant measure, also stands as a point, you answered that this is my imagination as well.
And now your latest claim is
Quoting jgill
Is this based on your years of supposed experience in the field of mathematics or your supposed understanding of Metaphysics and the One? If I were you I would not respond unless it makes sense the next time you do and it is not off topic, dont forget that you are currently in: /Metaphysics and epistemology and my post is on the One, not a cult, not a poem, and definitelly not based on a limited capacity to comprehend ideas such as exhibited by you and others.
Quoting Gnomon
You cant have something from nothing.
From the exchanges of insults, I see that you are becoming frustrated by the incomprehension of your unconventional ideas on a forum of philosophers & mathematicians. I can relate. Some of my attempts to explain the reasoning & inferring underlying my unorthodox Enformationism thesis also meet with shrugs of nescience.
As long as I stick to established concepts of Physics, the dialog flows both ways. But when the discussion branches off into Meta-Physics, the communication tends to go off-track. That's where I rely on my online Glossary to provide relevant definitions of what I'm saying, that may not be found in dictionaries & encyclopedias. But, of course, they have no academic or scientific credentials to give them an air of authority.
I suppose that one reason for the disconnect is that modern Philosophy is more strongly influenced by immanent Materialism than transcendent Metaphysics, and by the authority of modern Naturalists than by ancient masters of the Supernatural. My own limited knowledge of philosophy skips-over most of the Post-platonic ideas and picks-up again with 20th century topics. So, except for Plato & Aristotle, I am mostly ignorant of the Ancient Masters.
Obviously, you have given the "OIZ" concept a lot of thought and research. But, as you said, "The One Infinite Zero is indeterminate & ineffable". Which makes it difficult to define & express in conventional terms. . . . even technical philosophical terms . . . . which have been debated for millennia. So, all I can advise is to keep plugging-away (american idiom) at it. Even though I don't understand some of your inferences from the OIZ axiom, I have a general interest in such ineffable & transcendent topics. :smile:
Yes, I know. But logically you can have the emergence of something Actual from the statistical possibilities of timeless spaceless mathematical Potential*1. :nerd:
PS___ Materialism assumes that Actual Stuff has always existed, so no need for un-actualized Potential. But that metaphysical axiom is not falsifiable or verifiable. Since the BB theory calculated that everything in the universe was originally stuffed into a spaceless dimensionless mathematical point, the calculations sailed over the edge of finite reality into the abyss of Infinity : the transcendent realm of timeless entities like numbers, existing in the dimensionless gap between Zero and One. Nothing spooky about that non-existent innumerable notion. :joke:
*1. Potential :
Unrealized or unmanifest creative power. For example the Voltage of an electric battery is its potential for future current flow measured in Amps. Potential is inert (and non-existent) until actualized by some trigger. In the Enformationism metaphor, the real world was originally an idea in the Mind of G*D, with the infinite possibilities of Omniscience, that was realized by an act of Will.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
Note --- My ineffable "G*D"*2 may be roughly equivalent to your "OIZ".
*2. G*D :
[i]An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer, Potential. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshipped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. Thats because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Intention is what I mean by G*D.[/i]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- If you imagine that eternal Potential as something like ideal mathematical Logic, it would have no need for human emotions that arise from the limitations of finite beings in an ever-changing reality.
I'm just throwing some ideas out there, into the Aether, to see if any might stick :
#A. "pre-existing space" : Space-Time is not a real thing, but an imaginary geometric model that scientists use to understand Change. Since it is Ideal, scientists can extend the model timeline into the future or the past {image below}.
#B. "space itself is stretching" I assume this is a metaphor, as-if space is an elastic substance. Space is not a material substance that could stretch & warp, but the infinite Causal Potential that makes the local Matter Effect possible?
#C. "effect of phenomena" : As you put it : space is the conceived effect of sensable phenomena, such as Matter, relative to other Matter, or that is changing its size or location. But apparently, the Cause of the effect is undifferentiated Chaos that voluntarily begins to differentiate its infinite Potential into multiple space-time Actual Things. If so, then Chaos possesses Will-power*1 or Causal Power, Desire, Inclination, Choice???
#D. "space is not made of actual space" : Not a metaphor, but a mystery. So, what is formless empty nothingness made of : Aether*2? Traditionally Chaos = randomness or nothingness or void. As you said "not deterministic", so is Chaos pure Chance? Without the willpower to choose, anything that can happen will happen??? Is space made from the causal willpower we call Energy/Change? :smile:
*1. Will :
"Schopenhauer identifies the thing-in-itself the inner essence of everything as will: a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation
Note --- Is "OIZ" similar to Schopenhauer's Will : more like a physical Force than a metaphysical G*D?
*2. Aether :
(or ether) can refer to the ancient Greek concept of the pure upper air breathed by gods, the personification of this sky deity, or a discredited scientific theory of a space-filling medium for light.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=aether
In the 21st century, the "aether" concept reappears in physics, not as the 19th-century luminiferous medium, but as the Einstein ether, a framework exploring a space-filling medium compatible with Einstein's theories that could potentially explain dark matter/energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=21st+century+aether
Note --- Not the Fifth Element, but the Only Substance (Aristotle/Spinoza)
SPACE-TIME BEFORE & AFTER BIG BANG