Quote:
Originally Posted by Jway
Just playing around with the rationality of the fundamental laws you are addressing.
1. Everything that is, exists as everything (totality)
2. If some things exist, then everything can exist as it is, and it can exist as less than what it is, which is inherently a contradiction of every thing. Thus contradiction is permissible, where and when the belief / observation of some things are said to be existing.
3. Based on the perception of observer(s), everything is and/or it is not (everything). Existence of single solitary (and thus distinct) observers makes for plausibility that BOTH everything is and is not, while each thing is or is not.
Conclusion: Everything is No Thing and No Thing is Every Thing, except when an Observer is present and insisting that totality is (merely sum total of) some thing(s).
Measurement is prime example of "nothing" attempting to render Everything into something that is conceivably less than Everything, or that which is not (Everything).
|
I am a little on the loopy end of things today being that I missed some precious hours of sleep.. so I don't think I will get into your reply to deeply at the moment, but I think what should suffice is a conclusive statement of my own, which you can for yourself discern if it is agreeable with your thoughts.
Conclusion:
In our efforts to understand reality we intuitively place meanings, on (at least) behaviors, actions, and things. Through this we develop rational thought and reasoning that we can build upon in order enrich that meaning. In other words, we intuitively discover/learn a foundation of which build upon. Therefore, one could describe that, the extent of what we know of reality relies on the extent of ability to apply meaning to it, in the sense of both rational and irrational conception. So if we are to understand reality further, we must investigate how these meanings come about, how they are constructed and modeled, and furthermore, the extents or capacity they can be applied and related.
What this tells us about what the theory communicates is; at the source of it all that exists is a system of; first, pure source (energy). Second, pure form. Third, pure choice(although I hesitate to use that word, it does not fully convey the concept of relative perspective). And that it is this system of sets that is needed to "close" it off and produce a perspective or observation.
In follows that anything considered a part of the universe must then be within these conclusions here. If it were not, then what? Continuing, if reality were to have a function that was incapable to be included with this theory, then we would be left with a problem that existed beyond anything we can discern as real. That is, if this theory can produce the bottom line breakdown of thought and its laws, it would follow that we could make conclusions that the universes behavior will be filtered by these laws of thought in the very literal sense that the universe (any comprehendable item or behavior) is literally thought, a compilation of 'events' grinded through these laws, to produce a foundation that other meanings in the universe can be formed by; Then, that possibility of conception would not be a part of this universe. This raises the question, of how can we ponder something not apart of our universe (our consciousness), without developing some notion of a unknown part of consciousness. If it is not rational or irrational (limited series of being) then what? Comprehension of eternal? maybe... i dunno.
