We are in perpetual nothingness.

[QuickTwist]

The premise of this proposition is that we cannot be two places at once ourselves but that for every place we are not there is a chance we could be there.

Being is the place where an entity exists. In other words where the subject is it is understood that it cannot be any other place. Being cannot exist everywhere. There must be space in between where subjects are. Because a subject can move from one place to another is evidence that being does not mix with other being. The evidence that there is not an overlap on being is seen in that if it were so the being would be of one being and not two separate beings of placement in relation to each other.

So when considering where a being is we should understand that there is a chance that it could be somewhere else. The evidence of this is that being is something that moves and subjects tend to change position of relation to each other.

So how can we account for what is in between where beings change position in relation to each other while not overlapping to each entity that exists? It is the entity, or rather the non-entity that exists everywhere where a being does not exist. But that is not the full story, for when we do not know the location of a being, it could be anywhere. If a subject cannot be everywhere how is the subject to know its relation to all other beings? This is something that cannot be clearly explained. We can only say we do not know where the entity is in relation to us. If we have to be somewhere but cannot be everywhere it is imaginable that we can be perpetually accounted for to be everywhere and nowhere. But it is preposterous that we can be everywhere and nowhere. Our conscious mind dictates where we are and since neither my conscious mind nor unconscious mind can know that I am in two places at once it should be understood that we can only be one place at a time.

There then has to be a divide of being. It is in this that we come to the full understanding of what it means to be in nothing. We cannot truely know where we are in relation to other entities. It is only in estimation that we know where we are in relation to other beings. It is in this divide of being that we see that we don't even fully grasp where we are. We can only know where we are when comparing our being in relation to what is not nothing. The divide is that because there is a nothing we cannot know the space that is between entities. We can however know that we are closer in relation from one being to another, but we can never fully grasp the distance of nothingness in between us and another entity. The distance of nothingness is therefore perpetually the distance between beings. In the greater length of nothingness it gets harder to know where we are in relation to that not nothing.

So then we are but a light in an area surrounded by darkness and in our relation to others who are also like lights we cannot know to what extent we are from other lights only insofar that we know that we are closer to some lights than others. It is the in betweenness and only in that that we are able to get a feeling of distance between one entity and another. We are constantly changing position in relation to other beings and in this we are in nothingness.

[Exodus]

[Not A Communist Shill]

[Capitalist Pig]

in before the first serious post in this thread

[Aylen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently — instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.
Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc., performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles are generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise, as to be expected due to their entanglement. However, this behavior gives rise to paradoxical effects: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g., by collapsing a number ofsuperposed states) and will change the original quantum property by some unknown amount; and in the case of entangled particles, such a measurement will be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.
According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space",^[1] and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."^[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.^[3][4][5]

[Aylen]

Ne (perhaps suggestive) > Ni

[QuickTwist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Hey, some good finds on your end. Curious what you think the implications are of what I said and how it correlates to these other principles. When I first made the writing I admit to thinking it was between different people and not atoms, but it seems to have found a home in quantum mechanics. Without a doubt quantum mechanics can do wonders in describing some things that were merely philosophical before. Its largely taken over or at least those who are serious philosophers tend to reach out to quantum mechanics for validity of their hypotheticals, interestingly enough.

[Aylen]

Hey, some good finds on your end. Curious what you think the implications are of what I said and how it correlates to these other principles. When I first made the writing I admit to thinking it was between different people and not atoms, but it seems to have found a home in quantum mechanics. Without a doubt quantum mechanics can do wonders in describing some things that were merely philosophical before. Its largely taken over or at least those who are serious philosophers tend to reach out to quantum mechanics for validity of their hypotheticals, interestingly enough.

Thanks. I read about quantum physics now and then. I find quantum entanglement very intriguing and "spooky". I have more of an interest in string theory but last I checked it hasn't gone far. I will get back to this. My head is foggy so trying to limit my thinking. :/

[Capitalist Pig]

still waiting

[Aylen]

Oh come on cpig. It has to be you who does it!.

As a brief follow up... My favs in bold.

Niels Bohr quotes

“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: science

“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: absurd, humour, truth, wisdom

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: paradoxes, science, truth

“There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.”
― Niels Bohr

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: paradox, physics

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.”
― Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge

tags: particles, physics, quantum, reality, science, strange

“No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical.”
― Niels Bohr

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: reality

“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think”
― Niels Bohr


“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: question-crazy

“Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself it’s own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it.”
― Niels Bohr

“The meaning of life consists in the fact that it makes no sense to say that life has no meaning.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: belief, meaning

“A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: physicist-atom

“There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: truth

“The very nature of the quantum theory ... forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and description, respectively.”
― Niels Bohr

tags: physics, quantum-mechanics, reality, science

“Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.”
― Niels Bohr, Nuclear Physics, 1929-1952

“You can recognize a small truth because its opposite is a falsehood. The opposite of a great truth is another truth.”
― Niels Bohr
tags: falsehood, philosophy, truth

“[About describing atomic models in the language of classical physics:]

We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.”
― Niels Bohr

[DirectorAbbie]

we cannot be two places at once

...unless you're married, since husband and wife are one flesh but can still be miles apart without dying.

but that for every place we are not there is a chance we could be there.

For the most part. I meant, there's a pretty good chance I could have been two inches to my right, or even in the kitchen, right now. But the odds that life would have put me at Victoria Falls right now are pretty slim, and I see no scientific possibility for me to have been in the Andromeda galaxy right now.

Being is the place where an entity exists.

...and the larger the entity, the larger the place where the entity exists. So an elephant can "be" at a whole lot more points than a mosquito.

Being cannot exist everywhere.

Unless the entity is of infinite size.

The evidence that there is not an overlap on being is seen in that if it were so the being would be of one being and not two separate beings of placement in relation to each other.

"The evidence...is seen." Because you're looking at physical forms. Two physical forms cannot occupy the same point in space afaik. But discounting a physical form, what prevents two spirits from being in the same location?

So when considering where a being is we should understand that there is a chance that it could be somewhere else.

Do you mean "could have been," or are you trying to find your dog and have no idea where to look?

If a subject cannot be everywhere how is the subject to know its relation to all other beings?

How about by asking One who can be everywhere?

the full understanding of what it means to be in nothing.

...what? That reminds me of something my SLE brother was saying yesterday, about how "nothing" is a very basic concept. To clarify, I asked, "So people who think nothing is complicated are wrong?" "Yup."

So then we are but a light in an area surrounded by darkness and in our relation to others who are also like lights we cannot know to what extent we are from other lights only insofar that we know that we are closer to some lights than others.

This sounds theological.

[Aylen]

Hey, some good finds on your end. Curious what you think the implications are of what I said and how it correlates to these other principles. When I first made the writing I admit to thinking it was between different people and not atoms, but it seems to have found a home in quantum mechanics. Without a doubt quantum mechanics can do wonders in describing some things that were merely philosophical before. Its largely taken over or at least those who are serious philosophers tend to reach out to quantum mechanics for validity of their hypotheticals, interestingly enough.

I knew you were talking about physical lifeforms (humans) but it struck me that the explanation, of the bigger picture, could be understood through quantum mechanics, at least in part. Viewing the whole then reducing it down to the smallest component is not really a great strength of mine but I try, sometimes with success. I can see the "whole" and understand it on the intuitive level. Then, as if by magic, I synchronistically find my answers, as my capacity to understand my experiences, in a more concrete form, appears. I find it very difficult to explain a "knowing" in any concrete form. It takes time to manifest a coherent response, sometimes. Most of the time I do not even feel any need to. It is enough to have my "knowing" without outside acknowledgement, criticism, or validation that might taint it somehow. I can call it my truth and no one can take that away from me. I get this deep feeling of satisfaction with myself even without another person's input. I might even smile when I think/ feel it and look like a lunatic smiling for no reason.

I want to add that emotions are not bound by time and space, neither is intuition, thoughts, imagination... I can affect someone's emotion when they are nowhere near me and they can strongly affect mine. It is like there is no space in between us when it happens and the person really feels what I am putting out. These things are forms of energy and projecting energy across vast distances is certainly doable. If I project my consciousness/energy, no one can prove I am not in many places all at once and I can't prove that I am to a skeptic. I am not going to get into many examples since your post had more of a concrete feel to it from the beginning and I do not have a clear sense of what you are looking for but Ne suggestive strongly comes to mind.

I am rusty with my Ne but I guess I am trying to say that energy, (make it plural if you like) vibes, and frequencies do occupy what might appear as "nothingness". You could also say "everything is everything" so we are everywhere and nowhere (depending on your perception of nowhere). We are all made of the same elements our universe is constructed of so in that way we are everywhere. I believe we exist in multiple dimensions outside of our known space and time. Energy exists on every level and in every dimension. There are no lines of separation even if we cannot observe and record, yet.

Many people believe in ghosts or spirits. I do too, not always in a spiritual sense but I have some symbolic manifestations created by the mind and projected in a religious form, like the idea of an angel or demon-like being. Am I sensitive even to the weakest of energies and able to manifest them visually or audibly? I know I am not "crazy". I have had the experience of walking through another's energy field. They were standing in my dining room. I saw them as a vague misty form but could clearly make out their faces and style of dress. Did I interact with a past life of my own? Was it traces of energy left over from those who occupied this space before or do they still exist in there own discrete unit of time (as we know it). It is like an imprint left by other energy signatures/configurations (personalities?) like a Polaroid captures an image then it slowly develops. Something left an imprint and I was able to tap into it, complete with a feeling of being annoyed, which was not even mine. It felt almost like I had been violated by the ghostly figure but I assume they felt that about me because I didn't think I was violated. I just thought it was cool. I was not on drugs or anything that could warp my perception, for those thinking it.

What really got me interested in string theory is that I woke up one morning and had the physical sensation of being connected to absolutely everything by these odd, stretchy, invisible strings that expanded and contracted as I moved closer or further to objects or people. I had never had that kind of sensory experience before and it was both shocking and fascinating to me. At first I didn't want it to end but then after awhile I guess I did want it to end. We are living in a dimension of visual, mental and physical separation for good reason. A human cannot maintain that kind of experience for extended periods without thoughts of going mad. Anyway it kind of reminded me of some new age concepts that there was no separation and I got to experience it firsthand without the aid of drugs (again for those thinking it).

I have felt something similar since then but not exactly the same. I cannot sustain it. It is too much and I want to shake it off after a few minutes. I prefer to keep these things in the realm of thought, for the most part. I was profoundly effected by it. The fact that others did not believe my experience or gave me what they thought were rational explanations did not sway me from being awed by it and wanting to figure out what exactly happened to me. It turns out it was not exactly the explanation I thought I would find when I read about string theory but very interesting and thought provoking, to say the least.

I don't think I have any answers that would make sense, to most people. I feel like an Ne valuer would be more helpful.

[GuavaDrunk]

Technically your definition of 'space a' (using this as a convenient place-holder word) is only that it does contains a being. There is no other stated property.

You can argue that 'space a' that does not contain a being is not 'space a' (by definition). Thus it is indeed nothing, per that point of view, but because there are no other known properties, you do not know for example that it has any kind of distance. Having a notion of distance implies that a way to measure it exists, because there must be a difference between 'near' and 'far'.

Since it does not have a distance (I assume by implication no means of communication/transmission), there is by definition no other way for beings to know anything about each other than to touch each other.

However since, again, there is no 'near' or 'far', there is no difference between close neighbours and distant ships in the night. Hence the only way would be to overlap, occupy at least in part the same 'space a'. However you exclude this possibility in your early paragraphs, so we are now all doomed to deeply complete loneliness. Cheers.

Having said that, the assumption that 'no distance = no communication' is flimsy. For one it ignores the case of adjacent beings, where "where you end is where I begin". In this scenario the beings might be able to differentiate between 'non-space a' and 'not-self space a' next to their own boundaries. On the other hand you can say that perception is solely a property of the being instead of its 'space a'. Even adjacent beings would be unaware of each other because they would have no 'space a in common', and would be only aware of what is strictly in their 'space a'. Since neither being would know of its neighbour, you could argue that there is a piece of the world which is unknown, information that no-one picked up on. This could be a type of 'non-space', and thus beings would be strictly unable to touch each other. *hugs pillow ;_;*

Going by Aylen's suggestion of quantum entanglement and taking that notion to mean that two 'objects' (place-holder word) which do not share a 'space b' (where a 'space b' is w/e contains that type of object) will still have a common reaction. This implies that either these objects have a means of transmission (so they can update each other's state) or that they have no need for a transmission because their relevant beingness is in common, either partly or in whole.

Again, from your early paragraphs, 'space a' does not allow for more than one being at a time.

Assuming space a and b are different kinds of spaces, we would need more information to compare the two kinds of spaces before drawing (logical) conclusions about inter-relations between beings or objects because I have a headache. Humans get to live in existential crisis for a little longer until a shaman returns.

If space a and b are the same kind of space, but two objects are observed to co-exist nonetheless, then space a's property that two beings cannot co-exist in the same space is a property of the beings, instead of the space. Hence the beings' isolation can be argued to be self-imposed or an innate property of those beings. Humans are scaredy-cats, or structurally incapable of truly touching each other (see paragraph 5). Yay. :|

Assuming space a and b are the same kind of space, and that the prohibition against co-existing is a property of this space, two objects would of necessity have two different spaces, and thus not be allowed to overlap. Assuming no other way to overlap (could get dimensional here~), then two objects cannot share a beingness and thus must have a means of information transmission. This information will need to travel from one space to another.

In the case of adjacent spaces ('where I end is where you begin'), let your imagination take you to the marvellous land of single-celled amoebae and picture: little nodes of information gathering at the frontier of the known world and being changed, welcoming new ways of being and new lands in their dreams. More seriously, if the objects can tell then why not the beings too? idk

In all other cases, there is at least an infinitesimal 'non-space' in between these. Because this non-space can be crossed -- and this does not specify that it has a distance or "takes time" to be crossed -- we can conclude that beings do potentially have a way to transmit information. Cue some kind of argument that if the objects can why not the beings.

Unfortunately it could simply be that the objects remain the same because there is a lack of time in which they can be different, which could in turn be a lack of time in which they can change at all. However the beings are said to move... (selective time availability? re-writing the whole of history such that you end up in a different place?)

tl;dr: Drink your tears kiddo, there won't be a spring for a while.

[/flexes small Ti muscles in mirror and blows kiss to self]

Evidently @Aylen and I parse the world differently. It's really interesting to read your perspective, even if I'm not sure I could grok it (whether that's by nature or training, idk).

[Aylen]

Technically your definition of 'space a' (using this as a convenient place-holder word) is only that it does contains a being. There is no other stated property.

You can argue that 'space a' that does not contain a being is not 'space a' (by definition). Thus it is indeed nothing, per that point of view, but because there are no other known properties, you do not know for example that it has any kind of distance. Having a notion of distance implies that a way to measure it exists, because there must be a difference between 'near' and 'far'.

Since it does not have a distance (I assume by implication no means of communication/transmission), there is by definition no other way for beings to know anything about each other than to touch each other.

However since, again, there is no 'near' or 'far', there is no difference between close neighbours and distant ships in the night. Hence the only way would be to overlap, occupy at least in part the same 'space a'. However you exclude this possibility in your early paragraphs, so we are now all doomed to deeply complete loneliness. Cheers.

Having said that, the assumption that 'no distance = no communication' is flimsy. For one it ignores the case of adjacent beings, where "where you end is where I begin". In this scenario the beings might be able to differentiate between 'non-space a' and 'not-self space a' next to their own boundaries. On the other hand you can say that perception is solely a property of the being instead of its 'space a'. Even adjacent beings would be unaware of each other because they would have no 'space a in common', and would be only aware of what is strictly in their 'space a'. Since neither being would know of its neighbour, you could argue that there is a piece of the world which is unknown, information that no-one picked up on. This could be a type of 'non-space', and thus beings would be strictly unable to touch each other. *hugs pillow ;_;*

Going by Aylen's suggestion of quantum entanglement and taking that notion to mean that two 'objects' (place-holder word) which do not share a 'space b' (where a 'space b' is w/e contains that type of object) will still have a common reaction. This implies that either these objects have a means of transmission (so they can update each other's state) or that they have no need for a transmission because their relevant beingness is in common, either partly or in whole.

Again, from your early paragraphs, 'space a' does not allow for more than one being at a time.

Assuming space a and b are different kinds of spaces, we would need more information to compare the two kinds of spaces before drawing (logical) conclusions about inter-relations between beings or objects because I have a headache. Humans get to live in existential crisis for a little longer until a shaman returns.

If space a and b are the same kind of space, but two objects are observed to co-exist nonetheless, then space a's property that two beings cannot co-exist in the same space is a property of the beings, instead of the space. Hence the beings' isolation can be argued to be self-imposed or an innate property of those beings. Humans are scaredy-cats, or structurally incapable of truly touching each other (see paragraph 5). Yay. :|

Assuming space a and b are the same kind of space, and that the prohibition against co-existing is a property of this space, two objects would of necessity have two different spaces, and thus not be allowed to overlap. Assuming no other way to overlap (could get dimensional here~), then two objects cannot share a beingness and thus must have a means of information transmission. This information will need to travel from one space to another.

In the case of adjacent spaces ('where I end is where you begin'), let your imagination take you to the marvellous land of single-celled amoebae and picture: little nodes of information gathering at the frontier of the known world and being changed, welcoming new ways of being and new lands in their dreams. More seriously, if the objects can tell then why not the beings too? idk

In all other cases, there is at least an infinitesimal 'non-space' in between these. Because this non-space can be crossed -- and this does not specify that it has a distance or "takes time" to be crossed -- we can conclude that beings do potentially have a way to transmit information. Cue some kind of argument that if the objects can why not the beings.

Unfortunately it could simply be that the objects remain the same because there is a lack of time in which they can be different, which could in turn be a lack of time in which they can change at all. However the beings are said to move... (selective time availability? re-writing the whole of history such that you end up in a different place?)

tl;dr: Drink your tears kiddo, there won't be a spring for a while.

[/flexes small Ti muscles in mirror and blows kiss to self]

Evidently @Aylen and I parse the world differently. It's really interesting to read your perspective, even if I'm not sure I could grok it (whether that's by nature or training, idk).

I had to read your post twice, slowly. hahah I wish I could express things the way you do because it sounds far more intellectual and well thought out.
I think I can grok most of it though and what I don't will become clear after I sleep on it, once or twice. <3

Edit: I misread something. I think I'm good now. heh

[GuavaDrunk]

I had to read your post twice, slowly. hahah I wish I could express things the way you do because it sounds far more intellectual and well thought out.
I think I can grok most of it though and what I don't will become clear after I sleep on it, once or twice. <3

Edit: I misread something. I think I'm good now. heh

Hah, that post took me long enough to write out, it better be intelligible

To each their own, yours sounds more flowing and like something grown instead of built. You likely come across as more sincere and companionable.

[QuickTwist]

...unless you're married, since husband and wife are one flesh but can still be miles apart without dying.

That is another philosophical theory that I thought about while writing this. I came to the conclusion that even during sex there is a kind of divide between individuals since you cannot know exactly how they are feeling during it.

For the most part. I meant, there's a pretty good chance I could have been two inches to my right, or even in the kitchen, right now. But the odds that life would have put me at Victoria Falls right now are pretty slim, and I see no scientific possibility for me to have been in the Andromeda galaxy right now.

The fact that it is impossible to say what the chances are that you could be two inches to your right or in the andromeda galaxy is evidence that there is actually a chance that we could be there.

...and the larger the entity, the larger the place where the entity exists. So an elephant can "be" at a whole lot more points than a mosquito.

3 dimensionally speaking sure, but that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

Unless the entity is of infinite size.

I cannot feel that there is something apart of me that is not me and since I am confident in my own being I can't say I know there is a an entity of infinite size. Even the universe is not infinite space.

"The evidence...is seen." Because you're looking at physical forms. Two physical forms cannot occupy the same point in space afaik. But discounting a physical form, what prevents two spirits from being in the same location?

I am not as confident that two "spirits" can occupy the same place as you are.

Do you mean "could have been," or are you trying to find your dog and have no idea where to look?

Like trying to find your dog that you have not idea where it is, yes.

How about by asking One who can be everywhere?

Again I am not sure there is a being that can be everywhere and if there is who says they want to communicate to me?

...what? That reminds me of something my SLE brother was saying yesterday, about how "nothing" is a very basic concept. To clarify, I asked, "So people who think nothing is complicated are wrong?" "Yup."

Not sure what to say to this,

This sounds theological.

It is metaphysical, yes.

[Aylen]

Hah, that post took me long enough to write out, it better be intelligible

To each their own, yours sounds more flowing and like something grown instead of built. You likely come across as more sincere and companionable.

Thank you.

I had to reread your post because of my own MDD (multiple dimensional disorder ). IOW, I am feeling spaced out today. You did a great job.

Here is a link for anyone interested in string theory and the 11 dimensions. I read the book, "The Elegant Universe" years ago and it was really hard to understand then. I have wanted to read it again for a long time so maybe now is perfect. I feel like I need something challenging to occupy my brain so I don't disappear into a sea of feely four stuff. heh I wonder if it will still be challenging. It was the first time and I think I threw the book across the couch a few times when my brain would start saying, "enough, do something mindless, for awhile".

Program DescriptionOne of the most ambitious and exciting theories ever proposed—one that may be the long-sought "theory of everything," which eluded even Einstein—gets a masterful, lavishly computer-animated explanation from bestselling author-physicist Brian Greene, when NOVA presents the nuts, bolts, and sometimes outright nuttiness of string theory.

Also known as superstring theory, the startling idea proposes that the fundamental ingredients of nature are inconceivably tiny strings of energy, whose different modes of vibration underlie everything that happens in the universe. The theory successfully unites the laws of the large—general relativity—and the laws of the small—quantum mechanics—breaking a conceptual logjam that has frustrated the world's smartest scientists for nearly a century.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...-universe.html

Edit: Oh, I did try to read it again a couple years ago but gave up for some reason. I think I had too much going on.

[QuickTwist]

@GuavaDrunk,

I actually did account for knowing "closeness" from one being to another, but it was not at all explicit and not very well articulated.

... It is only in estimation that we know where we are in relation to other beings... We can only know where we are when comparing our being in relation to what is not nothing... We can however know that we are closer in relation from one being to another, but we can never fully grasp the distance of nothingness in between us and another entity. The distance of nothingness is therefore perpetually the distance between beings. In the greater length of nothingness it gets harder to know where we are in relation to that not nothing.

Basically what I am trying to say here is that the closer we are to other beings the more we know where they are in relation to us and the more we know them. So its like those who are far from you you may not know that they even exist, but those who are close to you you can know fairly well.

[QuickTwist]

@Aylen,

I meant most of the writing to be in the metaphysical rather than physical. So take a given that one knows themselves. They will then have a better idea of closeness to someone who is much the same even if they don't exactly know of them specifically. It ofc also works on the level of those in close proximity to one because they have an effect on you and you have an effect on them.

Does that make sense?

[DirectorAbbie]

That is another philosophical theory that I thought about while writing this. I came to the conclusion that even during sex there is a kind of divide between individuals since you cannot know exactly how they are feeling during it.

I was referring to Ephesians 5:31: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

The fact that it is impossible to say what the chances are that you could be two inches to your right or in the andromeda galaxy is evidence that there is actually a chance that we could be there.

I am 25 years old. Andromeda is 2.5 million light-years away from Earth. So assuming I was born on Earth, there would be no way for me to get there by now. And humans only live on planet Earth. And if I were not human, I would not be me. That would be someone else entirely.

Like trying to find your dog that you have not idea where it is, yes.

Reminds me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

and if there is who says they want to communicate to me?

1 Thessalonians 5:17 says, "pray without ceasing." 1 Chronicles 16:11 says, "Seek the Lord and His strength; Seek His face evermore!" 1 Peter 5:7 says, "casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you."

[QuickTwist]

I was referring to Ephesians 5:31: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

I'm not sure I believe it just cuz its in the bible though.

I am 25 years old. Andromeda is 2.5 million light-years away from Earth. So assuming I was born on Earth, there would be no way for me to get there by now. And humans only live on planet Earth. And if I were not human, I would not be me. That would be someone else entirely.

Who says you have to be born on earth though? You could begin anywhere.

Reminds me of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Yes, like that.

1 Thessalonians 5:17 says, "pray without ceasing." 1 Chronicles 16:11 says, "Seek the Lord and His strength; Seek His face evermore!" 1 Peter 5:7 says, "casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you."

I don't believe the bible is infallible, so you're going to have to try something else.

[DirectorAbbie]

Who says you have to be born on earth though? You could begin anywhere.

Then the question: if I did begin somewhere else, and grew up in a different body as an asexually-reproducing quadruped with a different language and life experiences, would that be me? I say it wouldn't be me.

[QuickTwist]

Then the question: if I did begin somewhere else, and grew up in a different body as an asexually-reproducing quadruped with a different language and life experiences, would that be me? I say it wouldn't be me.

It could be the exact biological you somewhere else though.

[DirectorAbbie]

It could be the exact biological you somewhere else though.

So are you going with, "What are the chances this planet of humans started out in Andromeda instead of in the Milky Way?"

[QuickTwist]

So are you going with, "What are the chances this planet of humans started out in Andromeda instead of in the Milky Way?"

You could very well go that direction with it Abbie.

[GuavaDrunk]

@GuavaDrunk,

I actually did account for knowing "closeness" from one being to another, but it was not at all explicit and not very well articulated.

Basically what I am trying to say here is that the closer we are to other beings the more we know where they are in relation to us and the more we know them. So its like those who are far from you you may not know that they even exist, but those who are close to you you can know fairly well.

Sure, that's why I wanted to expand on that, amongst others, because you can twist that notion of 'closeness' in several directions. Close does not necessarily imply known.

Haven't found whether known would imply close, but off the top of my head if I continue from my previous post then if two objects know each other, then either they can overlap, which puts them in a different category from beings and thus they cannot be compared usefully with regards to this property. Or they cannot overlap, which makes them comparable in this respect to beings and implies that either beings can perceive an adjacent being, and thus have a slightly permeable 'space a' boundary (because they can perceive something which is not strictly their space, but someone else's), or that beings can transmit information across 'non-space a', which branches off possibilities like woa.

Or both, really.

[Aylen]

Who says you have to be born on earth though? You could begin anywhere.

I was first born on a little planet in alpha centauri. I have been making my way across the universe ever since and finally ended up here. I have been using earth as my playground for a couple 100,000 years since.

And yes I get that your op was meant to be metaphysical. I didn't get the transcendental feel from it like I do with other writings of a similar nature but that is a subjective thing anyway. That is what I meant by concrete. I can see it had the potential to go there, at the end.

[wacey]

I think our minds are a hologram machine and that we also live in a collective hologram called culture and in actuality we are nothing more than talking, howling, grunting apes wearing nail polish and dress shoes and living in small metal boxes in the sky because of some ancient instinctual drive to shelter from the grassy plains at night. Or, searching for the stars, depending on your flavour of delusion conclusion.

I think we mistake the hologram for reality and therefore are living ina kind of dream from the moment our self concept forms until the moment we die and that our minds can't help itself.

I think the we are emptiness and that its all one big shared cosmic dream or joke, depending on your resignation.

I think beings cannot cross the space between other beings because the structure of those beings is nothingness in the first place. Nothing, no thing, no center of which humans are the most fortunate of all the animals because there is a chance to wake up from it. ..and then fall asleep again. Zzzz zzzz zzzz. Nothing playing a game of being something.

One big breath: clawing, gnashing, biting, screaming, humping, laughing, swimming, playing, running, sleeping, sitting, shitting, crying, holding, hugging, sighing, singing, typing, writing, baking, cooking, eating, standing, making, building, mining...connecting....dying. Aaannd let it out.

All while writing a story about it and the narrative becomes the thing because the grey matter between our heads is the most powerful squishy object to come out of natural selection since molecules started replicating with fecundity. And the really funny part, the really scary part, is no one is doing it. Its just doing without a verb. But, but I want to exist, please let me be real, please let me be me!.....shhhh.

I think its best practise not to think in words as they are ultimately dry and and empty and fall back into meaninglessness as soon as they are cognized. But the trouble is the words are now the thing and you cant look at a tree without thinking tree and so you might as well let everything go and live a normal life because its all one big crap shoot anyway. Just keep sawing logs cause it's all good.

Anyway that's just me. : p

[QuickTwist]

Sure, that's why I wanted to expand on that, amongst others, because you can twist that notion of 'closeness' in several directions. Close does not necessarily imply known.

Haven't found whether known would imply close, but off the top of my head if I continue from my previous post then if two objects know each other, then either they can overlap, which puts them in a different category from beings and thus they cannot be compared usefully with regards to this property. Or they cannot overlap, which makes them comparable in this respect to beings and implies that either beings can perceive an adjacent being, and thus have a slightly permeable 'space a' boundary (because they can perceive something which is not strictly their space, but someone else's), or that beings can transmit information across 'non-space a', which branches off possibilities like woa.

Or both, really.

I think you're hitting on something that needs to be explored a bit more.

I'd say closeness presupposes being known but known does not presuppose closeness. So something has to be known for closeness to occur but closeness doesn't always come from being known. There may be certain factors that prevent knowing to translate into closeness. I like to think of closeness as kindred while known would mean being aware of that being. But this all depends on interpretation of "known" and "closeness". So I can say my biological mother is both known to me and close to me, but I may not have that same closeness to my neighbor. Like I can know my neighbor but that doesn't guarantee that there is any closeness between them and me. Its the same way that I can be close to someone on the internet or really anyone out there somewhere because of similarities we have with each other. Its like if you know yourself you can be close to those who you may have never have met before and might not ever meet. I will have to go back and see if I am mixing up "closeness" with "known".

As far as objects go, its something that I can see getting very complicated. I think where objects can overlap is in the way they can be manipulated by beings. Perhaps in an objects very nature is to overlap with other objects and this would set them apart from other objects that have to be manipulated by a being to overlap. Hmm... I will have to think about this.

Also, I think the nothingness is really all just one space and that there are not really a 'space A' and 'space B'. Could you explain that a bit more?

[Aylen]

I want him to be my identical.

I can only believe that all of consciousness is energy, in perpetual motion, constantly changing form. I can only let "it" do it's thing.


#norestfortheweary
#norestforthewicked
#tiredandwouldliketochangeformnow

[Not A Communist Shill]

It's never over until it's over. I don't think it is beneficial to be pessimistic about That which we do not Know.

[Aylen]

It's never over until it's over. I don't think it is beneficial to be pessimistic about That which we do not Know.

But, but, what if you are really, really, tired??? Is it ok to be pessimistic for an hour or two?

#feelsmoreoptimisticalready

[Not A Communist Shill]

But, but, what if you are really, really, tired??? Is it ok to be pessimistic for an hour or two?

#feelsmoreoptimisticalready

it's ok to be human, even if I do not consider it beneficial.

[QuickTwist]

@GuavaDrunk,

I think I am getting a better idea of how to articulate what I was thinking. The idea is that closeness transcends distance but knowing another being is reliant on close proximity. So what you are close to is essentially what you are like. The more likeness a being has to you the closer you are to them, but this idea also works with knowing another being as well. If I know a being really well I will know them, but I will also know their essence to a smaller degree and then it is the same as closeness in that I will know the likeness of that which I know.

There is also something to be said for beings you are close to but are also in close proximity to you and knowing them. If you know what is in likeness to you there is a kind of bond that begins between the two. Not in a joining sense, but rather in a familiarity sense. Also the way you can know a being you have not come across before is because you know the likeness of that entity. It should be understood that closeness and knowing works on a sliding scale and is not at all binary.

[Aylen]

@QuickTwist

I thought this might be something you would be interested in.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/04/1...consciousness/