Original post: Specktackular
What is the universe? I define the universe as a name for the set of all existents--as in a set in mathematics. Every individual existent belongs to the set called the "universe." The universe consists of everything (the same as every thing), every existent. One can describe the universe only by describing the nature of one or more existents, and the way the existents interact. The universe does not have a nature apart from the nature of its individual members and their interactions.
All things exist. It follows that no thing does not exist. That is clear, as any thing is an existent, as defined above. So "nothing" has never existed, or, there is no such thing as "nothing." By the definition of existence, the last statement says: There exists no such existent as a nonexistent. This boils down to a simple statement: Nonexistence does not exist. Nothing does not exist.
Time is a measurement, a relationship between entities (note the plural), e.g., the earth's motion around the sun. The progression of motion gives us the concept of "time." Nothing can be said to move except in relation to something else. The term "eternal" is meaningless without the existence of physical entities. "Time" is within the universe; the universe is not within time.
It has been asserted that the universe has no end, no edges, no finality. They claim that there is "nothing" beyond the universe. They say that if we could wander to the universe's extremities, we, by our presence there, would create more space; therefore, we would perpetuate the expansion of the universe.
There is no creator of the universe because there was no creation of the universe or creation of existence. The phenomenon of existence was not created. To prove that it is possible for existence not to exist, one must posit that nonexistence can exist.
Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed a scientific approach to ending the cause question. He envisages a quantum universe where space-time would be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would have no beginning or end:
"The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space time. . . There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. . . What place, then, for a creator?"
--Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.
A similar sphericity or circularity might result if the universe had enough mass to be closed - that is, to recollapse on itself in a "big crunch," which in turn might be followed by another "big bang." In that case the end of one cycle would be the cause of the beginning of the next.
You can't start out with absolutely zero / nothing and expect to arrive at something. O. Divide, multiply, etc.
We are able to see intelligence in the supposed non-intelligent minutia of cosmic reality, which leads many to believe it was designed by a creator. Surely some force of intelligence must be acting upon the universe.
I believe the universe IS intelligence, a form of "energy" for lack of a better word which is the building blocks of all else. It could be the dark matter, the Qi, the Tao, the cause of evolution, etc. Intelligence is the will that directs the universe, just as your intelligence directs your hands (matter) via the nervous system (energy) to type at your keyboard. Just as an inventor thinks up new ideas and then creates these ideas in reality out of matter. I believe that thought has the power to literally materialize. That is what magick is all about! (And I think everyone should watch the movie "Solaris," by the way.)
While people take the idea that "man was made in God's image" to mean he is somehow similar to God, I take it to mean, quite literally that man is WITHIN the image of "God". Think of "God"/Universe as a painting and you have been included within it-- literally within the "image" of God.
Just some ideas I cobbled together from the internet via trusty Google and copy/paste. Try them on and see if they fit.
Nothing
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: SARDONICPILLOW
the solaris made in 1972 or 2002?
the solaris made in 1972 or 2002?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Ludi
This is somewhat similar to what I believe. I also see the possibility of multiple Universes, multiple space-time continua.Cosmologist Stephen Hawking has proposed a scientific approach to ending the cause question. He envisages a quantum universe where space-time would be curved back on itself like the surface of a sphere, and thus would have no beginning or end:
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=Ludi]This is somewhat similar to what I believe. I also see the possibility of multiple Universes, multiple space-time continua.[/QUOTE]
I believe this as well. If time exists within the universe, rather than the universe existing within time, then all events exist within the universe, like a giant Chutes and Ladders game. You can slide into multiple realities.
[QUOTE=Ludi]This is somewhat similar to what I believe. I also see the possibility of multiple Universes, multiple space-time continua.[/QUOTE]
I believe this as well. If time exists within the universe, rather than the universe existing within time, then all events exist within the universe, like a giant Chutes and Ladders game. You can slide into multiple realities.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=SARDONICPILLOW]the solaris made in 1972 or 2002?[/QUOTE]
I was talking about the 2002 Solaris. I never saw the other one. Do you know if the 72 version is better?
[QUOTE=SARDONICPILLOW]the solaris made in 1972 or 2002?[/QUOTE]
I was talking about the 2002 Solaris. I never saw the other one. Do you know if the 72 version is better?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: KCh
The Chinese devised the Book of Changes from nothing.
In fact all creative endeavor comes from pure nothing. All ideas spring from a fountain unknowable. The main point here is that there is no 'one' that created. It was pure Nothing. Luck in its most commonplace definition is the cause perhaps?
"...when you have understood how 0=2 is the unique, the simple, and the necessary solution of the Riddle of the Universe, there will be, in a sense, little more for you to learn about the Theory of Magick."
The Chinese devised the Book of Changes from nothing.
In fact all creative endeavor comes from pure nothing. All ideas spring from a fountain unknowable. The main point here is that there is no 'one' that created. It was pure Nothing. Luck in its most commonplace definition is the cause perhaps?
"...when you have understood how 0=2 is the unique, the simple, and the necessary solution of the Riddle of the Universe, there will be, in a sense, little more for you to learn about the Theory of Magick."
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=KCh]The Chinese devised the Book of Changes from nothing.
In fact all creative endeavor comes from pure nothing. All ideas spring from a fountain unknowable. The main point here is that there is no 'one' that created. It was pure Nothing. Luck in its most commonplace definition is the cause perhaps?
"...when you have understood how 0=2 is the unique, the simple, and the necessary solution of the Riddle of the Universe, there will be, in a sense, little more for you to learn about the Theory of Magick."[/QUOTE]
The main point is not that noone created everything, but that nothing could have created everything because nothing exists outside of everything. Read that last sentence again closely. It is not affirmation that nothing has ever existed, but that it can't exist. Everything is all that exists, without room for a creator. The semantics of "nothing exists outside of existence" is an illusory sentence. It does not mean that nothing exists, but it seems to imply that. But existence is defined by something-ness, therefore nothing-ness does not exist. Null sets exist within infinity.
I understand how 0=2 is unique. Standing at a neutral point in an infinite set, there are 2 options: negative infinity or positive infinity. However, this is not something starting from nothing. It is a null set within infinity.
The Book of Changes did not come from nothing. This "fountain unknowable" that you are talking about is not nothing. It is something. It is unknowable. Where do the ideas come from? Some say the void, nothing. I answer: a place where all ideas come from, universal consciousness, because nothing comes from nothing.
[QUOTE=KCh]The Chinese devised the Book of Changes from nothing.
In fact all creative endeavor comes from pure nothing. All ideas spring from a fountain unknowable. The main point here is that there is no 'one' that created. It was pure Nothing. Luck in its most commonplace definition is the cause perhaps?
"...when you have understood how 0=2 is the unique, the simple, and the necessary solution of the Riddle of the Universe, there will be, in a sense, little more for you to learn about the Theory of Magick."[/QUOTE]
The main point is not that noone created everything, but that nothing could have created everything because nothing exists outside of everything. Read that last sentence again closely. It is not affirmation that nothing has ever existed, but that it can't exist. Everything is all that exists, without room for a creator. The semantics of "nothing exists outside of existence" is an illusory sentence. It does not mean that nothing exists, but it seems to imply that. But existence is defined by something-ness, therefore nothing-ness does not exist. Null sets exist within infinity.
I understand how 0=2 is unique. Standing at a neutral point in an infinite set, there are 2 options: negative infinity or positive infinity. However, this is not something starting from nothing. It is a null set within infinity.
The Book of Changes did not come from nothing. This "fountain unknowable" that you are talking about is not nothing. It is something. It is unknowable. Where do the ideas come from? Some say the void, nothing. I answer: a place where all ideas come from, universal consciousness, because nothing comes from nothing.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: KCh
S.,
As I said before, read the chapter in Magick without tears on 0=2 for an explanation of how something is derived from nothing.
S.,
As I said before, read the chapter in Magick without tears on 0=2 for an explanation of how something is derived from nothing.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
Kch, perhaps I haven't said it before, but I've read Magick Without Tears. Something can not come from nothing.
Kch, perhaps I haven't said it before, but I've read Magick Without Tears. Something can not come from nothing.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[quote=""Kch"]S.,
As I said before, read the chapter in Magick without tears on 0=2 for an explanation of how something is derived from nothing.
[/quote]
Kch, perhaps I haven't said it before, but I've read Magick Without Tears. Something can not come from nothing. What Crowley has done there is had some fun with numbers, not sticking simply with absolutely nothing, but involving mathematical concepts that would not exist in nothingness, such as an index of n, which allows him to reduce the equation to 1/0 which then equals infinity. However, 1 would not exist in nothingness and nothingness would not produce and index of anything.
He then took this 0=2 equation and tried to relate it to the Tao, unsuccessfully. Not only that, but he leaves this a mystery. For a more accurate interpretation of the Tao and the Tao Teh Ching, I recommend "Esoteric Tao Teh Ching" by Hua Ching Ni.
Now, here is some more food for thought, from Regenerating Universe Theory:
What is Infinity and what is Zero?
Infinity is not a fiction or imagination. It is a part of reality, or a positive quantity or measurement, but it is too big to accommodate a count or a dimension in it. In the state of Infinity there are no beginning, no mid-point and no end or any point of reference. The human person begins life in an environment of infinity, where things and events are simply countless. He also ends his life without having experienced or encountered for all those things and events. Therefore, human awareness forever exists in the reality of unaccountable infinities, be they things, or events in life and in nature. For that matter, no living being or events can ever exist outside the infinity. In this sense, it is quite natural and quite in conformity with reality to say that the universe exists in eternity and that time, which represents reality, is an infinite progression. Yet, it is typical of the human to think that there must be a beginning and an end of everything. So, what was the beginning, the egg or the chicken? And Why? Because all the human sees are beginnings and ends, of lives, of things and of events... When you see them everyday, it becomes part of your nature. But really are they truly beginnings and ends? In reality, they are millions, billions, trillions, in fact, countless of them all chained up together. The ends are linked to the beginnings and vice versa, forming a continuous progression of events going from infinity to infinity... That is the reality! Well, if this is not true, then who can prove how and whence did Big Bang Singularity come into existence?*
Of course, in the human conceptual behaviours the references of time are very important because without them the human sense of timing would be lost and the human would be left completely disorientated in the passage of events... In mathematical applications, both Infinity and Zero are generally or rather unconsciously taken as realities and put into daily use. However, unlike Infinity, which is a reality, Zero is an abstract or imaginary quantity, because in reality Zero does not exist! There is no such thing as Zero or true Nothingness in real existence, just as there is no "empty space". In other words, the term Infinity may be rather difficult to grasp and comprehend, but it is real in existence, while Zero is just an abstract idea. One would do well to bear in mind that the 'real' term Infinity is mixed in daily use and treated as equal with the 'unreal' term Zero, very often many times over in one same mathematical application.
[quote=""Kch"]S.,
As I said before, read the chapter in Magick without tears on 0=2 for an explanation of how something is derived from nothing.
[/quote]
Kch, perhaps I haven't said it before, but I've read Magick Without Tears. Something can not come from nothing. What Crowley has done there is had some fun with numbers, not sticking simply with absolutely nothing, but involving mathematical concepts that would not exist in nothingness, such as an index of n, which allows him to reduce the equation to 1/0 which then equals infinity. However, 1 would not exist in nothingness and nothingness would not produce and index of anything.
He then took this 0=2 equation and tried to relate it to the Tao, unsuccessfully. Not only that, but he leaves this a mystery. For a more accurate interpretation of the Tao and the Tao Teh Ching, I recommend "Esoteric Tao Teh Ching" by Hua Ching Ni.
Now, here is some more food for thought, from Regenerating Universe Theory:
What is Infinity and what is Zero?
Infinity is not a fiction or imagination. It is a part of reality, or a positive quantity or measurement, but it is too big to accommodate a count or a dimension in it. In the state of Infinity there are no beginning, no mid-point and no end or any point of reference. The human person begins life in an environment of infinity, where things and events are simply countless. He also ends his life without having experienced or encountered for all those things and events. Therefore, human awareness forever exists in the reality of unaccountable infinities, be they things, or events in life and in nature. For that matter, no living being or events can ever exist outside the infinity. In this sense, it is quite natural and quite in conformity with reality to say that the universe exists in eternity and that time, which represents reality, is an infinite progression. Yet, it is typical of the human to think that there must be a beginning and an end of everything. So, what was the beginning, the egg or the chicken? And Why? Because all the human sees are beginnings and ends, of lives, of things and of events... When you see them everyday, it becomes part of your nature. But really are they truly beginnings and ends? In reality, they are millions, billions, trillions, in fact, countless of them all chained up together. The ends are linked to the beginnings and vice versa, forming a continuous progression of events going from infinity to infinity... That is the reality! Well, if this is not true, then who can prove how and whence did Big Bang Singularity come into existence?*
Of course, in the human conceptual behaviours the references of time are very important because without them the human sense of timing would be lost and the human would be left completely disorientated in the passage of events... In mathematical applications, both Infinity and Zero are generally or rather unconsciously taken as realities and put into daily use. However, unlike Infinity, which is a reality, Zero is an abstract or imaginary quantity, because in reality Zero does not exist! There is no such thing as Zero or true Nothingness in real existence, just as there is no "empty space". In other words, the term Infinity may be rather difficult to grasp and comprehend, but it is real in existence, while Zero is just an abstract idea. One would do well to bear in mind that the 'real' term Infinity is mixed in daily use and treated as equal with the 'unreal' term Zero, very often many times over in one same mathematical application.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
... And, once again, concerning Null Sets, for high-minded physics geeks:
The empty set is not the same thing as "nothing"; it is a set with nothing in it, and a set is something.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Empty_set
... And, once again, concerning Null Sets, for high-minded physics geeks:
The empty set is not the same thing as "nothing"; it is a set with nothing in it, and a set is something.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Empty_set
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Ludi
Off-Topic
Off-Topic
I much prefer the earlier version, although it has a long boring part, I think it is closer to the novel.I was talking about the 2002 Solaris. I never saw the other one. Do you know if the 72 version is better?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=Ludi]Off-Topic
I much prefer the earlier version, although it has a long boring part, I think it is closer to the novel.
[/QUOTE]
Damn, not only is there another movie to see, but a novel as well. I'm curious to see how the situations are described in the novel. Cuz, like the 2002 verson said, "you have to see it for yourself"... so I wonder how the author let us do that with words...
[QUOTE=Ludi]Off-Topic
I much prefer the earlier version, although it has a long boring part, I think it is closer to the novel.
[/QUOTE]Damn, not only is there another movie to see, but a novel as well. I'm curious to see how the situations are described in the novel. Cuz, like the 2002 verson said, "you have to see it for yourself"... so I wonder how the author let us do that with words...
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: callum
as one of the mathematically challenged, could someone (i am impartial as to which team) please offer me a remedial response (not referring to Crowley or any high order physics).
my understanding is that mathematics describesa particular logical relations between "objects" rather than "objects" themselves. it is based on various unprovable axioms which offer high predictive value but which do not pretend to have any genuine psychological descriptive value (hence mathematics has not yet replaced other forms of language). as mathematics describes the relations between "things" how can it really be used to prove the existence of "no thing".
in basis arithmatic, +1 apple implies that i have in my possession an apple (it describes a logical relation between myself and an object called an apple). -1 apple states that the apple has been removed or destroyed, not that it has been canceled out by some time of anti-matter apple: the object just has been taken away. it does not describe the creation of a "no thing", just an absence of what was there before.
while the formula 2=0 has a great deal of pyschological value when applied linguistically (where 0 is used to describe a state of consciousness), does it really describe the same thing mathematically? what percentage of mathematicians fundementally agree that Crowley's formula provides an accurate "physical" description of reality?
as one of the mathematically challenged, could someone (i am impartial as to which team) please offer me a remedial response (not referring to Crowley or any high order physics).
my understanding is that mathematics describesa particular logical relations between "objects" rather than "objects" themselves. it is based on various unprovable axioms which offer high predictive value but which do not pretend to have any genuine psychological descriptive value (hence mathematics has not yet replaced other forms of language). as mathematics describes the relations between "things" how can it really be used to prove the existence of "no thing".
in basis arithmatic, +1 apple implies that i have in my possession an apple (it describes a logical relation between myself and an object called an apple). -1 apple states that the apple has been removed or destroyed, not that it has been canceled out by some time of anti-matter apple: the object just has been taken away. it does not describe the creation of a "no thing", just an absence of what was there before.
while the formula 2=0 has a great deal of pyschological value when applied linguistically (where 0 is used to describe a state of consciousness), does it really describe the same thing mathematically? what percentage of mathematicians fundementally agree that Crowley's formula provides an accurate "physical" description of reality?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=callum]as one of the mathematically challenged, could someone (i am impartial as to which team) please offer me a remedial response (not referring to Crowley or any high order physics).
my understanding is that mathematics describesa particular logical relations between "objects" rather than "objects" themselves. it is based on various unprovable axioms which offer high predictive value but which do not pretend to have any genuine psychological descriptive value (hence mathematics has not yet replaced other forms of language). as mathematics describes the relations between "things" how can it really be used to prove the existence of "no thing".
in basis arithmatic, +1 apple implies that i have in my possession an apple (it describes a logical relation between myself and an object called an apple). -1 apple states that the apple has been removed or destroyed, not that it has been canceled out by some time of anti-matter apple: the object just has been taken away. it does not describe the creation of a "no thing", just an absence of what was there before.
while the formula 2=0 has a great deal of pyschological value when applied linguistically (where 0 is used to describe a state of consciousness), does it really describe the same thing mathematically? what percentage of mathematicians fundementally agree that Crowley's formula provides an accurate "physical" description of reality?[/QUOTE]
You're exactly right. Mathematics uses an infinite set, which therefore assumes infinity. Crowley starts right off with an infinite set to examine zero. He starts playing around with zero, giving it an index n-n, which is not only unnecessary but illogical for describing actual nothingness. I actually think it is probably an outright deception on Crowley's part to make things fit. No scientist would look at Crowley's formula and agree with it.
[QUOTE=callum]as one of the mathematically challenged, could someone (i am impartial as to which team) please offer me a remedial response (not referring to Crowley or any high order physics).
my understanding is that mathematics describesa particular logical relations between "objects" rather than "objects" themselves. it is based on various unprovable axioms which offer high predictive value but which do not pretend to have any genuine psychological descriptive value (hence mathematics has not yet replaced other forms of language). as mathematics describes the relations between "things" how can it really be used to prove the existence of "no thing".
in basis arithmatic, +1 apple implies that i have in my possession an apple (it describes a logical relation between myself and an object called an apple). -1 apple states that the apple has been removed or destroyed, not that it has been canceled out by some time of anti-matter apple: the object just has been taken away. it does not describe the creation of a "no thing", just an absence of what was there before.
while the formula 2=0 has a great deal of pyschological value when applied linguistically (where 0 is used to describe a state of consciousness), does it really describe the same thing mathematically? what percentage of mathematicians fundementally agree that Crowley's formula provides an accurate "physical" description of reality?[/QUOTE]
You're exactly right. Mathematics uses an infinite set, which therefore assumes infinity. Crowley starts right off with an infinite set to examine zero. He starts playing around with zero, giving it an index n-n, which is not only unnecessary but illogical for describing actual nothingness. I actually think it is probably an outright deception on Crowley's part to make things fit. No scientist would look at Crowley's formula and agree with it.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: KCh
No wonder the Buddha was silent on this!
The 'idea' of nothing certainly exists, as otherwise we would not be writing about it. Does this mean that the actual nothing we speak of has its own existance? No. Of course not, it is nothing after all!
Typically when someone say 'nothing' to me, in my mind the idea of the absence of everything enters.
When I speak of Nothing, I take on a mystical meaning. Nothing mathematical could ever hope to comprehend, or lend comprehension of it. It is a system based in logic and Nothing is beyond logic. Nothing is beyond any idea. So truely it is useless to speak of it.
However, as I have said before, Nothing is not beyond 'experience'. But this experience is un-communicatable, or so it is said by those that have had it.
Now when Crowley set out to explain mathematically the 0 of 0=2, he started with an index of 0, not N. I'm afraid you have misunderstood S., re-read it please. I quote:
"Ah, but what we started to do was discover the meaning of Nothing. It is not correct to write it simply as 0; for that 0 implies an index 01, or 02, or 0n. And if our nothing is to be absolute nothing, then there is not only no figure, but no index either. So we must write it as 00."
Dividing we eventually develope into the infinitely great and small.
No wonder the Buddha was silent on this!
The 'idea' of nothing certainly exists, as otherwise we would not be writing about it. Does this mean that the actual nothing we speak of has its own existance? No. Of course not, it is nothing after all!
Typically when someone say 'nothing' to me, in my mind the idea of the absence of everything enters.
When I speak of Nothing, I take on a mystical meaning. Nothing mathematical could ever hope to comprehend, or lend comprehension of it. It is a system based in logic and Nothing is beyond logic. Nothing is beyond any idea. So truely it is useless to speak of it.
However, as I have said before, Nothing is not beyond 'experience'. But this experience is un-communicatable, or so it is said by those that have had it.
Now when Crowley set out to explain mathematically the 0 of 0=2, he started with an index of 0, not N. I'm afraid you have misunderstood S., re-read it please. I quote:
"Ah, but what we started to do was discover the meaning of Nothing. It is not correct to write it simply as 0; for that 0 implies an index 01, or 02, or 0n. And if our nothing is to be absolute nothing, then there is not only no figure, but no index either. So we must write it as 00."
Dividing we eventually develope into the infinitely great and small.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
Kch, Crowley does not stop at 00 to come up with infinity. Maybe you should re-read it.
[quote=""Crowley""]
Ah, but what we started to do was discover the meaning of Nothing. It is not correct to write it simply as 0; for that 0 implies an index of 01, or 02, or 0n. And if our Nothing is to be absolute Nothing, then there is not only no figure, but no index either. So we must write it as 00.
What is the value of this expression? We proceed as before; divide.
0 = 0n-n = 0n ÷ 0n =* 0n /1 x 1/0n
Of course 0n ÷ 1 remains 0; but 1 ÷ 0n = oo.
That is, we have a clash of the "infinitely great" with the "infinitely small"; that knocks out the "infinity" (and Advaitism with it!) and leaves us with an indeterminate but finite number of utter variety. That is: 00 can only be interpreted as "The Universe that we know."[/quote]
He's hilariously wrong in his method and possibly (I believe) intentionally so. There is no justification for creating indexes based on spatial dimensions because to do so creates the element of space where there is none. There is no empty space in reality, but if nothingness was a reality, there would be no such thing as spatial dimension. And starting from the imaginary concept of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, there is certainly no need to create indexes and certainly no reason, when dealing with nothingness to jump to algebra, which involves an infinite number set by it's very nature, when he switches from 00 to 0n-n. By adding the element of a spatial dimension (n-n) he creates an infinite set (He would not get the same result if he simply used 00 as opposed to 0n-n). The only reason he creates an index of n-n is so that he can arrive at the number 1 in order to divide it by zero, which creates "infinity" because 1/0 =oo. However, zero itself in relation to space is an imaginary number, therefore the equation itself is absolutly bogus. What he has actually done by the formula "0 = 0n-n = 0n ÷ 0n" is he has created zero amount of infinity-- not infinity or infinite "somethingness." His equation STILL FAILS.
Even with his ridiculous formula, he doesn't even concede that what he's left with is 0/oo, which amounts to "no infinity", but rather he states:
"Of course 0n ÷ 1 remains 0; but 1 ÷ 0n = oo.
That is, we have a clash of the "infinitely great" with the "infinitely small"; that knocks out the "infinity" (and Advaitism with it!) and leaves us with an indeterminate but finite number of utter variety. That is: 00 can only be interpreted as "The Universe that we know."
Great. :lol:
... But, enough of Crowley, who is a bit like the stage magician who tells you to look at one wiggling hand while he works his "magic" with the other... Let's look at the concept of nothingness directly.
Kch, if you have simply meant "the idea of nothing" as a concept exists, this is the first time you've expressed it such that I actually understood that you were simply talking about "nothing" the concept. You kept coming back to the idea of nothing, as if this somehow proved it existed. The idea that "nothing exists" does not mean that nothing actually exists or ever did exist. In fact, the idea of nothing doesn't even really exist. Picture it. It's something, isn't it? Nothing the concept is still something... in fact, it is so much something that the concept itself is vague. It is so vague that it is something we can not comprehend, so our mind tries to fill in the blank with a representation of it.
So, it looks like we've about covered that. There's no such thing as nothing.
But, just to tie up loose ends (not directed at anyone in particular):
Nothing exists?
Then, how do you explain everything? "Nothing exists" means that everything does not. The two can not both be true.
Perhaps one means by "nothing exists" that everything changes, that everything is in flux, so nothing is truly real and therefore nothing truly exists? In this case, the statement is still false, because whatever the underlying "stuff" is which changes actually does exists. And, anyway, just because something is not permanent, does not mean it existed at some point in time before it changed into something else.
Or maybe everything exists now... but at one point nothing existed (past tense)?
One can not get something from nothing. It is impossible.
Most simply, even if all is Maya, even an illusion is something.
Kch, you said, "No wonder the Buddha was silent on this topic." Mu, is referred to as "nothingness" because the Tao and consciousness are the invisible support of everything. Rejecting nothing, there is no division. Dualism is absent in Mu. There is no yes or no there only IS. Buddha nature is Nothingness. There is no ego or self in Nothingness, only true existence (and that's something).
Kch, Crowley does not stop at 00 to come up with infinity. Maybe you should re-read it.
[quote=""Crowley""]
Ah, but what we started to do was discover the meaning of Nothing. It is not correct to write it simply as 0; for that 0 implies an index of 01, or 02, or 0n. And if our Nothing is to be absolute Nothing, then there is not only no figure, but no index either. So we must write it as 00.
What is the value of this expression? We proceed as before; divide.
0 = 0n-n = 0n ÷ 0n =* 0n /1 x 1/0n
Of course 0n ÷ 1 remains 0; but 1 ÷ 0n = oo.
That is, we have a clash of the "infinitely great" with the "infinitely small"; that knocks out the "infinity" (and Advaitism with it!) and leaves us with an indeterminate but finite number of utter variety. That is: 00 can only be interpreted as "The Universe that we know."[/quote]
He's hilariously wrong in his method and possibly (I believe) intentionally so. There is no justification for creating indexes based on spatial dimensions because to do so creates the element of space where there is none. There is no empty space in reality, but if nothingness was a reality, there would be no such thing as spatial dimension. And starting from the imaginary concept of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, there is certainly no need to create indexes and certainly no reason, when dealing with nothingness to jump to algebra, which involves an infinite number set by it's very nature, when he switches from 00 to 0n-n. By adding the element of a spatial dimension (n-n) he creates an infinite set (He would not get the same result if he simply used 00 as opposed to 0n-n). The only reason he creates an index of n-n is so that he can arrive at the number 1 in order to divide it by zero, which creates "infinity" because 1/0 =oo. However, zero itself in relation to space is an imaginary number, therefore the equation itself is absolutly bogus. What he has actually done by the formula "0 = 0n-n = 0n ÷ 0n" is he has created zero amount of infinity-- not infinity or infinite "somethingness." His equation STILL FAILS.
Even with his ridiculous formula, he doesn't even concede that what he's left with is 0/oo, which amounts to "no infinity", but rather he states:
"Of course 0n ÷ 1 remains 0; but 1 ÷ 0n = oo.
That is, we have a clash of the "infinitely great" with the "infinitely small"; that knocks out the "infinity" (and Advaitism with it!) and leaves us with an indeterminate but finite number of utter variety. That is: 00 can only be interpreted as "The Universe that we know."
Great. :lol:
... But, enough of Crowley, who is a bit like the stage magician who tells you to look at one wiggling hand while he works his "magic" with the other... Let's look at the concept of nothingness directly.
Kch, if you have simply meant "the idea of nothing" as a concept exists, this is the first time you've expressed it such that I actually understood that you were simply talking about "nothing" the concept. You kept coming back to the idea of nothing, as if this somehow proved it existed. The idea that "nothing exists" does not mean that nothing actually exists or ever did exist. In fact, the idea of nothing doesn't even really exist. Picture it. It's something, isn't it? Nothing the concept is still something... in fact, it is so much something that the concept itself is vague. It is so vague that it is something we can not comprehend, so our mind tries to fill in the blank with a representation of it.
So, it looks like we've about covered that. There's no such thing as nothing.
But, just to tie up loose ends (not directed at anyone in particular):
Nothing exists?
Then, how do you explain everything? "Nothing exists" means that everything does not. The two can not both be true.
Perhaps one means by "nothing exists" that everything changes, that everything is in flux, so nothing is truly real and therefore nothing truly exists? In this case, the statement is still false, because whatever the underlying "stuff" is which changes actually does exists. And, anyway, just because something is not permanent, does not mean it existed at some point in time before it changed into something else.
Or maybe everything exists now... but at one point nothing existed (past tense)?
One can not get something from nothing. It is impossible.
Most simply, even if all is Maya, even an illusion is something.
Kch, you said, "No wonder the Buddha was silent on this topic." Mu, is referred to as "nothingness" because the Tao and consciousness are the invisible support of everything. Rejecting nothing, there is no division. Dualism is absent in Mu. There is no yes or no there only IS. Buddha nature is Nothingness. There is no ego or self in Nothingness, only true existence (and that's something).
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: KCh
I honestly see nothing wrong with the formula Crowley uses. The point is that from Nothing did the world as we know it develope. The first development it would seem is the idea of space. What I find most useful in the way Crowley handled this equation is the fact that it seems to mirror the Tree of Life. To disagree on this point with Crowley is to disagree with the Magical Qabalah and the Tree of Life. This is not unheard of, but I have yet to find a better system and see no reason to disagree with it.
S. it appears that we have come to a point where we must say that we disagree. Though I wouldn't mind discussing it more, from this point on it seems we will get nowhere but to the same conclusions we were brought to here.
It was an interesting discourse.
I honestly see nothing wrong with the formula Crowley uses. The point is that from Nothing did the world as we know it develope. The first development it would seem is the idea of space. What I find most useful in the way Crowley handled this equation is the fact that it seems to mirror the Tree of Life. To disagree on this point with Crowley is to disagree with the Magical Qabalah and the Tree of Life. This is not unheard of, but I have yet to find a better system and see no reason to disagree with it.
S. it appears that we have come to a point where we must say that we disagree. Though I wouldn't mind discussing it more, from this point on it seems we will get nowhere but to the same conclusions we were brought to here.
It was an interesting discourse.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=KCh]I honestly see nothing wrong with the formula Crowley uses. The point is that from Nothing did the world as we know it develope. The first development it would seem is the idea of space. What I find most useful in the way Crowley handled this equation is the fact that it seems to mirror the Tree of Life. To disagree on this point with Crowley is to disagree with the Magical Qabalah and the Tree of Life. This is not unheard of, but I have yet to find a better system and see no reason to disagree with it.
S. it appears that we have come to a point where we must say that we disagree. Though I wouldn't mind discussing it more, from this point on it seems we will get nowhere but to the same conclusions we were brought to here.
It was an interesting discourse.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that he is examining nothing from the perspective of infinity, not nothing. You can't see (or admit?) that nothingness completely omits the element of space? Warning signs do not go off in your head when he begins examining the spatial dimensions of nothing using an infinite number set (algebra)? He would not get 1 at all, were it not for his use of 0n-n in place of 00. Divide 00 by 00. You will not end up with the same results. Furthermore, the index of 0 is totally unnecessary and illogical because there would be no such thing as spatial dimension. However, for Crowley, it is the first step toward twisting the truth. From there, he substitutes 00 with 0n-n and he's well on his way to coming up with something remotely more interesting. But he still fails.
What he has mathematically done is show a zero amount of infinity by examining the number zero using an infinite number set. As such, he has proven nothing whatsoever. He has not shown how to make something out of nothing.
If you can't see that, then you need to reexamine the equation because the answer is 0/infinity. This is what you would expect to get analyzing zero from the perspective of infinity. Try analyzing zero from the perspective of zero. 0 x 0, 0 + 0, 0/0, 00/00, etc.
You can disagree all you want, but mathematics is about logic, not opinion. 0=2 works well philosophically, but Crowley has not proven how something could come from nothing, as you suggested.
This also does not totally invalidate the Qabalah. The Qabalah works very well in relation to something like the Big Bang theory or Quantum Reality, the Nonlocal Universe, the Holographic Universe, etc. All kinds of theories still work well with the Qabalah. The idea that something (cosmic consciousness/intelligence/Tao/God/whatever) has always existed does not negate the Qabalah. The Qabalah is just a tool to understand reality, it is not an exact map of reality. The underlying reality of everything could very well have spread out to form reality in a way that is fitting with the Qabalah. That doesn't mean the ray of creation was the literal beginning of everything and nothing existed before it, just as the Big Bang doesn't mean there was nothing before it, according to the Regenerating Universes Theory.
[QUOTE=KCh]I honestly see nothing wrong with the formula Crowley uses. The point is that from Nothing did the world as we know it develope. The first development it would seem is the idea of space. What I find most useful in the way Crowley handled this equation is the fact that it seems to mirror the Tree of Life. To disagree on this point with Crowley is to disagree with the Magical Qabalah and the Tree of Life. This is not unheard of, but I have yet to find a better system and see no reason to disagree with it.
S. it appears that we have come to a point where we must say that we disagree. Though I wouldn't mind discussing it more, from this point on it seems we will get nowhere but to the same conclusions we were brought to here.
It was an interesting discourse.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that he is examining nothing from the perspective of infinity, not nothing. You can't see (or admit?) that nothingness completely omits the element of space? Warning signs do not go off in your head when he begins examining the spatial dimensions of nothing using an infinite number set (algebra)? He would not get 1 at all, were it not for his use of 0n-n in place of 00. Divide 00 by 00. You will not end up with the same results. Furthermore, the index of 0 is totally unnecessary and illogical because there would be no such thing as spatial dimension. However, for Crowley, it is the first step toward twisting the truth. From there, he substitutes 00 with 0n-n and he's well on his way to coming up with something remotely more interesting. But he still fails.
What he has mathematically done is show a zero amount of infinity by examining the number zero using an infinite number set. As such, he has proven nothing whatsoever. He has not shown how to make something out of nothing.
If you can't see that, then you need to reexamine the equation because the answer is 0/infinity. This is what you would expect to get analyzing zero from the perspective of infinity. Try analyzing zero from the perspective of zero. 0 x 0, 0 + 0, 0/0, 00/00, etc.
You can disagree all you want, but mathematics is about logic, not opinion. 0=2 works well philosophically, but Crowley has not proven how something could come from nothing, as you suggested.
This also does not totally invalidate the Qabalah. The Qabalah works very well in relation to something like the Big Bang theory or Quantum Reality, the Nonlocal Universe, the Holographic Universe, etc. All kinds of theories still work well with the Qabalah. The idea that something (cosmic consciousness/intelligence/Tao/God/whatever) has always existed does not negate the Qabalah. The Qabalah is just a tool to understand reality, it is not an exact map of reality. The underlying reality of everything could very well have spread out to form reality in a way that is fitting with the Qabalah. That doesn't mean the ray of creation was the literal beginning of everything and nothing existed before it, just as the Big Bang doesn't mean there was nothing before it, according to the Regenerating Universes Theory.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: KCh
S.,
Since when did he 'replace' 00 with 0n-n? It is a natural developement from 00.
Even though you say he adds the element of space, it is still a space of 0 is it not? So is it really space?
Lets make this more interesting. Can you prove that something 'cannot' come from nothing? I am fully aware that nothing does not exist, but does it end there? Could it perhaps be an 'experience'? The universe is both logical and illogical is it not? Could there still be a way to 'know' it without using logic? Yes.
Though there may be fault in his algebra, it is only an eventual thing that such would be found. Every statement using logic will envitably have its converse. I am not bothered to say that the 0=2 formula is not perfect. But does it convey a truth and does Crowley really twist anything? If you consider logic anything close to truth you are sorely mistaken.
I never said it proved anything...only experience proves. I said it was an explaination, which in turn means you need to develope your own understanding of it. I have said it many times, Truth is relative and Nothing is universal. The first meaning is plain as white, but the veiled meaning sheds the light higher than eyesight.
S.,
Since when did he 'replace' 00 with 0n-n? It is a natural developement from 00.
Even though you say he adds the element of space, it is still a space of 0 is it not? So is it really space?
Lets make this more interesting. Can you prove that something 'cannot' come from nothing? I am fully aware that nothing does not exist, but does it end there? Could it perhaps be an 'experience'? The universe is both logical and illogical is it not? Could there still be a way to 'know' it without using logic? Yes.
Though there may be fault in his algebra, it is only an eventual thing that such would be found. Every statement using logic will envitably have its converse. I am not bothered to say that the 0=2 formula is not perfect. But does it convey a truth and does Crowley really twist anything? If you consider logic anything close to truth you are sorely mistaken.
I never said it proved anything...only experience proves. I said it was an explaination, which in turn means you need to develope your own understanding of it. I have said it many times, Truth is relative and Nothing is universal. The first meaning is plain as white, but the veiled meaning sheds the light higher than eyesight.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: cpmg_101
KCh
Buddha is silent about this? Buddhism learns to become nothingness, how can he be silent about this?
cpmg_101
KCh
Buddha is silent about this? Buddhism learns to become nothingness, how can he be silent about this?
cpmg_101
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
Also, you did offer Crowley's equation as proof that something could come from nothing. That is how we got on the subject in the first place.
Finally, yes, I can prove that something can not come from nothing. Nothing does not exist (only as an imaginary concept). If Nothing did exist, there would be nothing to act and nothing to be acted upon and no force with which to act. Logic shows this to be the case from occasions we can observe in reality. To dispute this would involve illogical fantasy, in which case I might as well be debating gravity with Wile E. Coyote. There is no evidence to support the claim that something CAN come from nothing, therefore the burden of proof lies with YOU, not me. That's how it works.
[quote=""kch""]I am fully aware that nothing does not exist, but does it end there? Could it perhaps be an 'experience'? The universe is both logical and illogical is it not? Could there still be a way to 'know' it without using logic? Yes."[/quote]
You ARE fully aware that nothing does not exist? It took a long time to get that to come out of you... and one wonders why all the debate about something you know is false? And now what are you trying to turn this debate into, if you know nothing does not exist? Could there be a way to "know" what without using logic? You've already said you know that nothing does not exist, so, what would you "know" by 'an experience'?
And, speaking of 'knowledge' gained from 'an experience,' is there a way to test your 'knowledge' without using proof? No. I've had lots of experiences which were quite convincing. That does not mean anything. Maybe your experience was wishful thinking, maybe you misinterpreted your experience due to limited understanding.
0n-n brings 0 into the realm of the infinity, as algebra involves infinity. 0n-n is only the same thing as 00 in the realm of infinity. Guess what? 0-0 / 0-0 = 0 But, n-n / n-n = 1. The 0=2 formula is not only "not perfect" as you kindly refer to it, it is meaningless. Crowley has merely described a null set in the realm of infinity. He hasn't started from Nothing, he has started from Infinity. So, whatever magnanimous concept you are accrediting to this equation is ill-conceived. No wonder you can't explain it, back it up or come up with a single angle that can not be refuted in under 5 minutes.KCh wrote:S.,
Since when did he 'replace' 00 with 0n-n? It is a natural developement from 00.
Even though you say he adds the element of space, it is still a space of 0 is it not? So is it really space?
Lets make this more interesting. Can you prove that something 'cannot' come from nothing? I am fully aware that nothing does not exist, but does it end there? Could it perhaps be an 'experience'? The universe is both logical and illogical is it not? Could there still be a way to 'know' it without using logic? Yes.
Though there may be fault in his algebra, it is only an eventual thing that such would be found. Every statement using logic will envitably have its converse. I am not bothered to say that the 0=2 formula is not perfect. But does it convey a truth and does Crowley really twist anything? If you consider logic anything close to truth you are sorely mistaken.
I never said it proved anything...only experience proves. I said it was an explaination, which in turn means you need to develope your own understanding of it. I have said it many times, Truth is relative and Nothing is universal. The first meaning is plain as white, but the veiled meaning sheds the light higher than eyesight.
Also, you did offer Crowley's equation as proof that something could come from nothing. That is how we got on the subject in the first place.
Finally, yes, I can prove that something can not come from nothing. Nothing does not exist (only as an imaginary concept). If Nothing did exist, there would be nothing to act and nothing to be acted upon and no force with which to act. Logic shows this to be the case from occasions we can observe in reality. To dispute this would involve illogical fantasy, in which case I might as well be debating gravity with Wile E. Coyote. There is no evidence to support the claim that something CAN come from nothing, therefore the burden of proof lies with YOU, not me. That's how it works.
[quote=""kch""]I am fully aware that nothing does not exist, but does it end there? Could it perhaps be an 'experience'? The universe is both logical and illogical is it not? Could there still be a way to 'know' it without using logic? Yes."[/quote]
You ARE fully aware that nothing does not exist? It took a long time to get that to come out of you... and one wonders why all the debate about something you know is false? And now what are you trying to turn this debate into, if you know nothing does not exist? Could there be a way to "know" what without using logic? You've already said you know that nothing does not exist, so, what would you "know" by 'an experience'?
And, speaking of 'knowledge' gained from 'an experience,' is there a way to test your 'knowledge' without using proof? No. I've had lots of experiences which were quite convincing. That does not mean anything. Maybe your experience was wishful thinking, maybe you misinterpreted your experience due to limited understanding.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: cpmg_101
Nothing does exist. In fact, everything is actually a illusion if you think about it.
cpmg_101
Nothing does exist. In fact, everything is actually a illusion if you think about it.
cpmg_101
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Nothing does exist. In fact, everything is actually a illusion if you think about it.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
Um... we've covered the concept of Maya already on this thread. An illusion is something (not nothing).
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Nothing does exist. In fact, everything is actually a illusion if you think about it.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
Um... we've covered the concept of Maya already on this thread. An illusion is something (not nothing).
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: cpmg_101
Specktackular
Actually, an illusion is nothing. If you read into buddhism some more, you would know
cpmg_101
Specktackular
Actually, an illusion is nothing. If you read into buddhism some more, you would know
cpmg_101