The way I see it, the all is absolutely whole (and infinite) ONLY in the realm of possibility. So one could take the view that a whole world is possible, and that one has a distinct capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration towards that possibility. But in order to become this whole, one needs to integrate how one connects and collaborates with ALL possible relations that could constitute this wholeness, as well as how those relations possibly connect and collaborate with each other. Not as easy as one might think...

Is the world/cosmos/all absolutely whole and always moving towards wholeness/fullness? If it is, would it need to be infinite, because infinity is more complete than the finite? — DanielP

Actually current cosmology points to the various regions of the universe retreating out of causal contact with each other (cosmological horizon).

Thanks for the reply, Possibility.

But in order to become this whole, one needs to integrate how one connects and collaborates with ALL possible relations that could constitute this wholeness, as well as how those relations possibly connect and collaborate with each other — Possibility

I think you are right, connecting with this whole in this manner where everything is explicitly laid out - is impossible.

This is more of a subliminal connection - a visualization. Imagine a vast panorama of All - it's literally got everything, nothing is missing, it is ripe, rich, complete, it has no end, and somehow it acts as a singular whole. We can never be that whole, but we could strive to be whole in the unique way we were called to be - with the shining example of wholeness being the infinite whole All. This whole all has left clues of wholeness in the world around us - a whole person, a whole animal or plant, a whole nation, a whole ocean, a whole earth, a whole solar system, whole galaxy, whole universe......and a whole infinite All (that last one is more of a leap of faith).

I think you are right, connecting with this whole in this manner where everything is explicitly laid out - is impossible. — DanielP

I wouldn’t say it’s ‘impossible’ as such - but it is an improbable possibility. I mention this only as a matter of perspective.

This is more of a subliminal connection - a visualization. Imagine a vast panorama of All - it's literally got everything, nothing is missing, it is ripe, rich, complete, it has no end, and somehow it acts as a singular whole. We can never be that whole, but we could strive to be whole in the unique way we were called to be - with the shining example of wholeness being the infinite whole All. This whole all has left clues of wholeness in the world around us - a whole person, a whole animal or plant, a whole nation, a whole ocean, a whole earth, a whole solar system, whole galaxy, whole universe......and a whole infinite All (that last one is more of a leap of faith). — DanielP

‘Imagine’ is the key here. We imagine the ‘whole’ as a possibility and strive to achieve it in the world by being a unique PART of the whole: not by striving to BE ‘whole’ in ourselves, but by striving to BE our unique interconnectedness with this conceptual ‘whole’.

I think these clues you mention point out not that there is ‘wholeness’ existing in the observable universe but that there isn’t - that wholeness is ONLY achievable AS this possible imagination of an infinite All. A person feels more ‘whole’ only by their connection to others; an animal or plant is a continual process of integrating from the environment and shedding or expelling waste; a nation must be inclusive of its migrants, visitors, exports, historical conceptions and future citizens; an ocean is a process inclusive of weather patterns and rivers...

A closer examination of external ‘boundaries’ to any supposed ‘whole’ in the universe only highlights their indeterminacy and porosity - even their illusory quality - as well as highlighting an unavoidable interconnectedness with whatever we attempt to ignore, isolate or exclude in pursuit of ‘wholeness’. It is at these margins that we find our purpose in imagining the possibility of the whole, and striving towards this possibility by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration where others see only boundaries.

What does "Whole" mean? What does it mean for the cosmos to "move towards" a concept?

I think these clues you mention point out not that there is ‘wholeness’ existing in the observable universe but that there isn’t - that wholeness is ONLY achievable AS this possible imagination of an infinite All. — Possibility

I agree that it isn't possible to prove that everything/universe/cosmos is absolutely whole. It really is a matter of "faith." In the back of my mind, I feel that there is something unreasonable with a universe that excludes anything from existing. I believe anything - to the point of infinity - exists in the universe. But on top of that, I think that belief implies that our reason for existence is to be whole. The infinite oneness/wholeness that we are a part of has an automatic switch for everything in it to strive towards being whole. If the world is truly one/whole/infinite, we would sense that oneness/wholeness/infinite nature, and at the same time strive to whole and one with things around us. And being whole has a relative perspective for different parts of All, I think different parts of the All - like you are me - have different objectives when striving for wholeness. For one, it might be adventure in nature, or good relationships with people, or lots of money etc. But I think in general striving towards being whole means having an infinite or oneness connection with the world around you. Infinite as in unbounded - you have merged, passed the boundary, and become one with many things that you care about in the world around you. By that I mean, you have a oneness with your passions, whether it be studying something, friendships, career, etc. The more you become one with the world around you (and the world in you, let's face it, our minds are in essence a complex world), the more whole you are.


Khaled, hope this answers your question too. What does whole mean to you?

I see your name is Possibility. Does that reflect on your philosophical worldview?

what is your basis for claiming the infinite is more complete than the finite? it strikes me as counter intuitive.

I am skeptical as to whether the idea of complete/incomplete has any discernable meaning applied to either the world or the universe.

I think these clues you mention point out not that there is ‘wholeness’ existing in the observable universe but that there isn’t - that wholeness is ONLY achievable AS this possible imagination of an infinite All.
— Possibility

I agree that it isn't possible to prove that everything/universe/cosmos is absolutely whole. It really is a matter of "faith." In the back of my mind, I feel that there is something unreasonable with a universe that excludes anything from existing. I believe anything - to the point of infinity - exists in the universe. But on top of that, I think that belief implies that our reason for existence is to be whole. The infinite oneness/wholeness that we are a part of has an automatic switch for everything in it to strive towards being whole. If the world is truly one/whole/infinite, we would sense that oneness/wholeness/infinite nature, and at the same time strive to whole and one with things around us. And being whole has a relative perspective for different parts of All, I think different parts of the All - like you are me - have different objectives when striving for wholeness. For one, it might be adventure in nature, or good relationships with people, or lots of money etc. But I think in general striving towards being whole means having an infinite or oneness connection with the world around you. Infinite as in unbounded - you have merged, passed the boundary, and become one with many things that you care about in the world around you. By that I mean, you have a oneness with your passions, whether it be studying something, friendships, career, etc. The more you become one with the world around you (and the world in you, let's face it, our minds are in essence a complex world), the more whole you are. — DanielP

I don’t think it makes sense to induce that ‘our reason for existence is to be whole’ from the belief that ‘anything exists in the universe’. You’re referring to ‘wholeness’ as if this universal ‘wholeness’ and my ‘being whole’ were the same thing.

The problem with your focus on ‘wholeness’ is these different objectives, and how they relate to each other. The implication is that we each strive for our own sense of ‘wholeness’, as if my objective would have nothing whatsoever to do with yours. But this isn’t the case, because this ‘wholeness’ we are striving for is inclusive not just of the things that you care about, but also the things that you don’t care about, and the things that I care about as well as those I don’t. So if I’m striving for adventure in nature and you’re striving for lots of money, then how do you and I relate to each other in achieving a ‘wholeness’ inclusive of each other and our ‘different’ objectives?

What most commonly occurs is that we strive to ignore, isolate and exclude those with ‘different objectives’ so that we can achieve this sense of ‘being whole’. In this way, we limit the ‘whole’ that we then strive towards, so that it appears more achievable.

If you have a finite set of say cars, and then an infinite set of all cars, the infinite set is more full, complete, rich than the finite set of cars.

I am skeptical as to whether the idea of complete/incomplete has any discernable meaning applied to either the world or the universe. — Arne

Well, if our universe is infinitely complete, then it be fully inclusive of all things. It would also mean that it acts as an infinite whole would act. Basically our universe would both be one, and act as one.

If our universe is finite and full of boundaries that cannot be crossed, then it is more difficult to describe it as a whole. It would act like a bunch of fragments of stuff interacting with each other - more difficult to have scientific universal forces like gravity to exist.

I think this affects us, because if we think the world is an infinite one, and acts as an infinite one, then we can more easily become one with the world. Otherwise in our finite universe model, we are easily to fall into isolation/fragmentation from the world.

I don’t think it makes sense to induce that ‘our reason for existence is to be whole’ from the belief that ‘anything exists in the universe’. — Possibility

Maybe what I'm going for is: All is an infinite, complete whole; All acts as an infinite complete, whole, thus acting as one. So it is in our nature, our inherent calling to act as a whole both internally within ourselves and externally with the world.

So if I’m striving for adventure in nature and you’re striving for lots of money, then how do you and I relate to each other in achieving a ‘wholeness’ inclusive of each other and our ‘different’ objectives? — Possibility

The dude who likes to make money creates a company that sells travel packages for the dude who like nature.

What most commonly occurs is that we strive to ignore, isolate and exclude those with ‘different objectives’ so that we can achieve this sense of ‘being whole’. — Possibility

That is true, many people have a narrow world perspective. But that doesn't mean it is the true world perspective.

Maybe what I'm going for is: All is an infinite, complete whole; All acts as an infinite complete, whole, thus acting as one. So it is in our nature, our inherent calling to act as a whole both internally within ourselves and externally with the world. — DanielP

This is the confusion we need to be aware of, though - because ‘acting as a whole’ externally (interacting) with the world is very different to ‘acting as a whole’ internally within ourselves. Where they differ, we experience prediction error or ‘suffering’: pain, humility and loss/lack. It is how we reconcile these situations that makes the difference.

That is true, many people have a narrow world perspective. But that doesn't mean it is the true world perspective. — DanielP

Agreed - but it’s true for them, and who are we to tell them it isn’t?

all cars is not by definition an infinite set any more than all living monarchs of the United Kingdom