edit:wrong page

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. — 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 :
# 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.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

This is true in a way but shouldnt Enformy mean both negentropy and entropy since these two are one phenomena? — 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 :
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 ]
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

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? — 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.

no-thing (some unknowable transcendent Potential)*3*4 — Gnomon

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.

Note --- Chaos, here, refers to Plato's realm of Ideal Forms, that are not Real, but only Potential, until Actualized by the Demiurge. — 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

Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance. — 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))?

“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

We are getting there now.

What you are describing is the one about which nought may be said.

Thats the whole point of the entire book, I dont understand where your misunderstanding lies so far.

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.

What you are describing is the one about which nought may be said.

-Punshhh

Thats the whole point of the entire book, I don't understand where your misunderstanding lies so far.

But you have said a lot about the one about which nought may be said.

Isn’t that a contradiction?

But you have said a lot about the one about which nought may be said. — Punshhh

What I am doing is called Henology, I have already responded to you on that.

Isn’t that a contradiction? — 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 :

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. — Illuminati

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. — 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:

Note --- Potential has no measurable "volume". Like "Zero", it's just an idea or concept with no material instance. — 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? — 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:

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 :

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 don’t 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.

My philosophy leans much more toward empirical Science & Ontology — Gnomon

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.

You are literally saying something about the One(that nought can be said). This is not the apophatic method.

I’m not the only one.

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).

Yes, I’m 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 can’t 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.

I’m not trying to shut down debate, or say we shouldn’t even talk about it. We can talk about it and about the way we talk about it etc. On the understanding that we don’t 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.

Youre saying “the apophatic method is the* only way”, youre making a comparative claim, not necessarily apophatic.

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 can’t be sure at all whether we are saying anything about it, or if we’re talking about it all the time, but just don’t realise it.

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.

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.

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.

Yes I know it looks like that, but as I say, you did agree with me that nought can be said, didn’t you? If you didn’t then fine, I might be wrong to say that nought can be said. I’m perfectly happy to accept that. Provided there is some rationale behind it.

I’m not the only one. — Punshhh

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.

Yes, I’m 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. — 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.

I think though that we must accept at some point that whatever we say about it, or deduce, or work out. It can’t be tested, or proved and might not bear any relation to the truth about the matter. — 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.

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. — 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.

This is a recognised technique, mainly adopted in Zen Buddhism in the form of a koan. For example; — 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.

Yes I know it looks like that, but as I say, you did agree with me that nought can be said, didn’t you? If you didn’t then fine, I might be wrong to say that nought can be said. I’m perfectly happy to accept that. Provided there is some rationale behind it. — 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.

I’m not trying to shut down debate, or say we shouldn’t even talk about it. We can talk about it and about the way we talk about it etc. On the understanding that we don’t 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. — 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.

We, or I can’t be sure at all whether we are saying anything about it, or if we’re talking about it all the time, but just don’t realise it. — Punshhh

Yes, my quote earlier stands, everything is the One yet you cant describe the One by describing the whole(everything).

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. — 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).

Yes I know it looks like that, but as I say, you did agree with me that nought can be said, didn’t you? If you didn’t then fine, I might be wrong to say that nought can be said. I’m perfectly happy to accept that. Provided there is some rationale behind it. — 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

Yes I know it looks like that, but as I say, you did agree with me that nought can be said, didn’t you? If you didn’t then fine, I might be wrong to say that nought can be said. I’m perfectly happy to accept that. Provided there is some rationale behind it. — Punshhh

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.

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 (Ον) 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. — Illuminati

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

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. — Gnomon

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).

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 child-like curiosity about what other people believe. — Gnomon

Which part exactly is surreal and not based on reason?

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 prefer to remain locally lucid and drug-free. Does that mean I am not a candidate for enlightenment? :smile: — 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).

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. — Illuminati

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 . . . .

You are asking what is the moral ground of this all if that exists . . . .
A key concept in this is the concept of Karma as described by me. . . .
The One means that there is no other One, it is Unique and Simple — 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:

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). — 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:

-In the beggining everything was non-deterministic (Chaos) and existed as One thing, then it was determined as specific and separate things. — 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:

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) — Illuminati

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?

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? — jgill

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.

According to science so far:

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.


Τhe 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.

OneInfinityZero — 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.

So far, out of the things I mention and the way I define those we have seen :

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.

You are going off topic because you have no arguments — Illuminati

Astute of you. True. How does one argue against the magic of "0IZ" ?

I’m not the only one.
— Punshhh

I was referring to you, who says lots of things about the one and then says they are true etc.

Yes, I’m 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.
— 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 it’s not.

I said it makes sense, not that I agreed with it. I remain open minded on the issue.

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.

Google ‘Koan’

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.

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 can’t change your mind, or approach in the discussion, but if you do, you should provide an explanation for it.

So far, out of the things I mention and the way I define those we have seen :

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.

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 haven’t seen anything new here. These ideas might be new and profound to an ordinary person in the street. But you’ve come to a philosophy forum where people discuss, analyse, critique and rip apart ideas like this all day long. What did you expect?

Astute of you. True. How does one argue against the magic of "0IZ" ? — jgill

By using reasonable arguments. None provided so far.

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.

"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."
— Punshhh

Koan — Punshhh

So my answer stands, there is no hand clapping as that requires a second hand.

But I haven’t seen anything new here — 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.

What did you expect? — Punshhh

People with a philosophical background.