Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 08:13 am

Is Every thing (Everything) Some thing (Something)? I believe so.
Hence - Some thing (something) must be 'Everything'.

So, if one thing (something) = (everything) then everything must = one thing (every thing = every thing) = everything is everything.

Am I some thing (something)? I believe so.
Hence - I am every thing (everything). If I am everything - everything is me....... and you and all things.

So all things are everything = Everything is all things.

Do you, any of you, us, we, disagree with this?

Thank you!

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 2,226 • Replies: 11
No top replies

Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 08:33 am
@mark noble,
It is entirely possible to imagine everything that exists as one singualar phenomenon, as opposed to the interconnection of many things. But these are not two different phenomenon, just different perspectives.
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 09:26 am
@mark noble,
Here's the definitive answer to all your "questions" on A2K !
0 Replies
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 09:49 am
@mark noble,
The things we know about can be considered as being part of one nomological system -- they're regulated by the same principles on a global scale, which allows them to influence each other, interact, integrate, etc. That's how/why we can know about them.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 12:05 pm
@mark noble,
Hi, Mark. I see you're back. Wink
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 10:59 pm
Yes, a matter of perspective. The interconnectedness of everything is a unitary reality by virtue of interconnection. Indra's Net. Here Monism and Pluralism are two sides of the same _______.
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 11:08 pm
Looking for a simple definition of metaphor of Indra's Net I googled this gem regarding the interconnectedness of all things in Buddhist mythology:

"When any jewel in the net is touched, all other jewels in the node are affected. This speaks to the hidden interconnectedness and interdependency of everything and everyone in the universe, and has an indirect reference to the concept of "Dependent Origination" in Buddhism. Additionally, Indra's Net is a definitive ancient correlate of Bell's Theorum, or the theory of non-local causes."
0 Replies
mark noble
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 11:24 am
Hi Reyn!

Yes, for the time being Smile Great to read from you once again!!!

Be well sir!
0 Replies
mark noble
Reply Wed 6 Apr, 2011 11:41 am
Thank you for your deliverances herein gentlemen. A part of why I ask this is because, no matter how much you reduce something, whatever remains, is also divisible by its components...and so on. Ultimately, what appears to be a solitary object (one thing) never is, it is the sum of its parts.

Now, Imagine there was one prime particle, moving at a speed whereas its every motion represents the passage of time. In its wake lies the energy/material of only its previous position's capacity. This particle as it moves is in a state of flux (let us use 'decay' here), ergo, it is never the same object nor able to occupy a prior location as exactly itself.

But it can collide with the material in its own wake, creating a seperate entity that is now neither the original object or the ghost that was occupying the prior location - New material has now been created - A hybrid of the prime particle and the decayed ghost.

I haven't time to take this any further atm - but do, indeed, intend to elaborate in greater detail soon.

Bye for now!
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 12:39 am
@mark noble,
I suggest you are making heavy weather of the non-equivalence of nested levels of description. (Try Schopenhauer).
0 Replies
Fil Albuquerque
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 03:50 am
@mark noble,
The most possible simple form that comes into my mind:
You need one Axis, left and right (one dimension) and one single piece of Info, where represented by a one (the number) in order to build the entire world...make the Axis a discrete Space, where some segments do not have one.
The "empty" spaces are not truly empty but rather have the "shadow" of one at T time, thus being full in their potential natural state...
mark noble
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2011 07:41 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Hi Fido!! Smile

Good point!

Anyway - The primary object is only observable as a sole entity from beyond its own dimension. As we know, it has a composition, ergo, observed from the inside it has no motion whatsoever - only the components, and the motion thereof, therein are perceivable - as is this universe we are accustomed to.

But for this issue we will stick to the object being observed from beyond - as is an atomic particle to us (imagined as having form).

With each movement this particle makes it expands its own dimension - we can slow this down and therefore see its motion frame by frame. let's use points A, B, C, D, E and F for simple reference.

A: particle is yet to commence perceivable motion.
B: particle has decayed and moved leaving a source of energy (prime ghost) in its wake at point A
C: particle is now decayed twofold, prime Ghost is at point B also in a state of temperal decay, secondary ghost is now at point A in a state of 2 X decay.
D: Particle collides with A, now in a state of 3 X decay - Prime energy source collides with depleted X 3 ghost and creates a new entity - A hybrid of D + A we will name 'E'.
E: A + D no longer exist - they are corrupted and altered by the collision.
F: Hybrid Particle has continued moving and is now in a state of Hybrid decay + 1, E is primary hybrid ghost + has now collided with B (decayed primary ghost X 2) - this creates a secondary hybrid (phase 2 hybrid) which has now made me decide to pursue this line of explanation in a different manner.

Will catch up with you after I have eaten.


0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
  1. Forums
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 04:38:28