Something + Nothing = Everything

Maybe we're trying to use words differently from how they should be used. The negation of something (A) isn't necessarily the same as it's opposite. Even then, abstract ideas don't fit into logical rules which stand on their own (priori stuff).

Maybe people came up with concepts like thinginess because they had a need they wanted to fill. It's not as though every possible phenomena exists as a distinct entity and is just waiting to be named. We run into limitations of language around here.

Non euclidean geometry just means we get bendy with the manifolds. Euclidean geometry isn't wrong per se, It's just a specific set of rules that apply to certain cases (ones that are conceptually easy)

I still need to get back to Gisteron's longer post here, but catching a few recent shorter ones I am humored by where we are going.

I do not think I have ever been in a conversation which all in one stream discussed whether nouns are happenings, where Legos come from, and the thinginess of existence before. This is getting pretty good! :laugh: :laugh:

Also bear in mind that eventhough space (or space-time, as it were) is non-Euclidean on a grander scale, it is - at least according to the postulates of General Relativity - locally Euclidean, if the theory is to be taken seriously. This is a very strong, very narrow claim, too, because it necessarily follows that curvature and even higher modes of... let's call it anisotropy, I suppose... are always finite bar a null set of singularities. Every trajectory that does not pass through one is therefore smooth, continuously differentiable by arbitrarily high orders. This means that any theory that proposes a wider discontinuity in mechanics is (to that extent) in some conflict with GTR. This doesn't necessarily preclude point-like mass concentrations but things would surely be a lot easier if there weren't any.
This is what people mean when they say that General Relativity is a field theory. It follows the tradition of hydrodynamics and electrodynamics before it, modeling the world as nice and smooth and easy to handle mathematically, without those pesky discretization artifacts.

[/nerdy stuff]

Ow Rex you are so right , i have been talking about "things" because i assumed ( yeah silly , never assume righ?) that we were all talking about the same thing :lol: namely ,,,,Matter

A popular argument is that both matter ( the one i have been referring to as Things ) and energy are variations of the same thing. Each can convert into the other. ... Even when matter and antimatter annihilate each other, they produce energy, in the form of photons, which are quantum units of light. If you were to build a molecule out of atoms, you wouldn't be creating matter. But i am not sure that that is the Energy others are refering to in this thread.

Neither do i think that you are wrong or right when you say that time in space is or or is not Euclidic , the point of discussions is to grow in understanding even if it confuses you at first, Time is not a constant , nor can we measure it when we are not on this planet so i think Gisteron is right in one sense but i have to figure out the Euclidic measures every time i step on another planet? Maybe i am simplifying things for the sake of argument ..

This discussion is certainly bringing a lot of questions but that does not Matter because it gives me Energy

james ok so I got in big trouble for this last time but basically the way I see reality is as 10 dimensions that spans 7 worlds. the world we experience is just the 7th one and there are 6 above that and at the highest is the force. it basically took of itself and shattered itself into a million pieces and sprinkled them down through the dimensions to create the worlds and us as life.

kobos I agree about the idea of the web. I think the shattered pieces are actually connected just like that. it is force gift that we need to use to restore ourselves to one whole thing again. we can either realize this and pull the strings ourselves to reconnect or we may choose to not see this and then others will have to pull their strings and make them come back together.

I dont know about the shoe and the toaster... and whether the shoe should make friends with the toaster or the ankle. but if I was asked which I would say well its the shoes decision on which one she wants to make friends with. why are we, who are not the shoe, contemplating what is best for the shoe? we dont have the knowledge or expertise or experience to make that call! lol

Well, it's a bit more nuanced than that. You didn't get in trouble for seeing reality the way you do. Here is a link to the thread in question in case any future reader is curious what really went on.
Granted, you did equate the initial "levels of consciousness" with "dimensions" at some point in the course of that thread, and they were ten initially, but after Omhu proposed seven you went on to base something like six or seven-ish types of awareness yourself with the Force being the highest, much like it is the highest of your now seven worlds. It is a bit confusing, what with the numbers not matching up and numerous different terms being thrown around and equated with no declaration as to what any of them mean, but it is what it is, and it is an entertaining read at that, regardless.

Call me agnostic if you like, but I think that no matter how much you learn about the Force (and there is a lot to learn... and unlearn) it will always exceed your grasp. It can't BE grasped entirely. It's like water. You can't grip it, or it will slip through your fingers. Cup your hands instead, and you can hold onto it, and even drink it.

_Vergere_ wrote: Call me agnostic if you like, but I think that no matter how much you learn about the Force (and there is a lot to learn... and unlearn) it will always exceed your grasp. It can't BE grasped entirely. It's like water. You can't grip it, or it will slip through your fingers. Cup your hands instead, and you can hold onto it, and even drink it.

Hi Agnostic

Good point, but i hope its not keeping you from discussing it. There are so many things we cannot grasp ...

And so many we can, too, if we could only be bothered...

Well gisteron let me clarify.

There are 10 dimensions.
The 10 dimensions span 7 realms, or worlds, or levels of consciousness.
The bottom realm is the one we exist in and the one we perceive through 4 of the dimensions.
The upper realms encompass things we need to begin to perceive. They also correspond to the 7 chakras. Our 7 chakras have a counterpoint, one in each realm. We need to learn to use that chakra and thus see that realm. The process brings a reunification of the broken parts of the force.

Oh, I see. So when you say there are ten levels of consciousness, what you really mean is there are only seven, but ten of those "dimension" things somehow "span" them. Four of those dimensions alone already span "the bottom realm" leaving the other six each to span one of the others on average. And us learning to use any of our chakras - except one, I presume, seeing as we do live in one of the seven realms as it stands already - allows us to "see" the corresponding realm. I suppose there is probably a list linking which chakra corresponds to which realm exactly and how to distinguish them, but that goes well beyond the scope of a "clarification" in the midst of an entirely different thread, so fair enough. Anyway, the Force is "broken" into an unspecified number of pieces and the process of us learning to use our chakras (what ever they are) in some way "brings a reunification" of those pieces back into on whole.

Am I understanding you correctly so far? I hope the numbers don't change again come another thread a week or so from now. But for now, this seems to be what you are saying more or less. Now, what any of it means, that completely beats me. But that's fine, it wouldn't be much of a woo-woo if clarity was a mark of it.
So anyway, granting that you might not have come up with it yourself, let alone just now on the spot, still... What part of this is not completely made up?

Yes what you said is basically correct. And those numbers have never changed. More likely you misunderstood the countings. Yes the 7th chakra is physical and exits here. Instincts and will to live and eat and sleep and sex and stuff like that. The 7th chakra, the spirit chakra is counterparted in the very force itself. Between those are 5 more realms, where energy body resides and reincarnation occurs from and guides and masters exist in to help our ascension. Get it?

None if this is made up. I have spent years in intense tantric meditations in which these things were slowly revealed to me as my awareness and comprehension of the universe slowly expanded.

Fyxe wrote: Yes what you said is basically correct. And those numbers have never changed. More likely you misunderstood the countings.

Yes, probably so. Can you blame me, though? I mean, you did say in post #344878 in that thread I linked that - and I quote - "We know there are 10 levels of consciousness from evidence." (emphasis added for later reference) and now you say that there are seven, spanned by ten dimensions. But maybe that's just me misunderstanding and the numbers really didn't ever change. My apologies.

Yes the 7th chakra is physical and exits here. Instincts and will to live and eat and sleep and sex and stuff like that. The 7th chakra, the spirit chakra is counterparted in the very force itself. Between those are 5 more realms, where energy body resides and reincarnation occurs from and guides and masters exist in to help our ascension. Get it?

Yes. Five realms between the seventh chakra and the other seventh chakra. Got it. Also the energy body is called energy for confusion purposes only, and is distinct from the physical body/realm/chakra.

None if [sic] this is made up. I have spent years in intense tantric meditations in which these things were slowly revealed to me as my awareness and comprehension of the universe slowly expanded.

Colour me self-critical, but I'd consider this a distinction without a difference. Whether "I" made something up or "a character from my recurring dream" did, I wouldn't have reason to trust it and all the less would anyone else. At any rate, in the passage I quote from post #344878 you do say that we know of the ten levels of consciousness/realms (now either recounted to seven or renamed to dimensions, but nothing changed and you are perfectly consistent) "from evidence" which I in my naivety took to mean a non-empty set of intersubjectively verifiable data positively indicative of your conclusion over possible alternatives. In my response in post #344883 I did inquire as to which evidence you were referring to from whence we apparently "know" of these 10 = 7 levels of consciousness, but, alas, to no avail. Now, apparently, what you meant by evidence could and by the looks of it solely did include private revelation slowly pouring in over many years of doing essentially nothing known to aid discovery or appreciation of nature's inner workings. My apologies, again, for only now recognizing this by rights perfectly normal use of "evidence" to refer to personal feelings of getting-it-ness and of "we" in "We know..." to refer to yourself alone.

I shall try to answer your questions Gist,

I made a mistake on the root chakra, it was not the 7th but the 1st. so 1st chakra exists in physical realm and is the source of reincarnation in the 2nd realm or astral realm.

consciousness exists in all realms and all dimensions. so we can be aware of 7 realms or 7 layers of consciousness AND 10 dimensions of consciousness that exist in those realms. maybe a bad use of words but are you not aware or conscious of the 4 dimensions in this realm? you just need to find the other ones!

There is much evidence for this structure in physics. a lot of physics has theory of 10 dimensions so there is that already. they are figureing out the rest as well I think.

Fyxe thank you for clarifying your ideas! I would love to see you go more in-depth.

Now this said before Gist responds I want you to be open to what is said, even if you disagree. Gist is literally a physicist, so expect some disagreement to the idea of the 10 dimensions having direct evidence in physics. However, this a chance to enhance your personal idea by supplementing it with that facts, ideas and opinions the may not align with yours.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Fyxe wrote: There is much evidence for this structure in physics. a lot of physics has theory of 10 dimensions so there is that already. they are figureing out the rest as well I think.

Hey, you know what? Why don't we take this to another thread, dedicated to (your view of?) the physical structure of... Well, I guess the universe/cosmos, or however else we shall dub "the everything thing". The Force, perhaps? I have a bit of an interest in physics myself, you know, maybe I can learn more of it from the sources you used. And maybe some others might, too, it could get to be an interesting thread indeed if we make it so. What say you?

ok