Essence is Absence

[popeye1945]

If the essence of everything is energy/frequency/vibration, then by default biological consciousness is these things thus reality becomes holographic energy/frequency/vibration.

Reality becomes subjective, perhaps holographic; you will need to explain that one to me.

The "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread argues holography to the T.

In simple terms all that exists are distinctions and these distinctions occur through further distinction this making reality holographic. That is the way over-simplified version.

Are distinctions and things the same entities, so what you're saying is that nothing is an independent existence. I have no problem with that.

[popeye1945]

If the essence of everything is energy/frequency/vibration, then by default biological consciousness is these things thus reality becomes holographic energy/frequency/vibration.

Reality becomes subjective, perhaps holographic; you will need to explain that one to me.

The "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread argues holography to the T.

In simple terms all that exists are distinctions and these distinctions occur through further distinction this making reality holographic. That is the way over-simplified version.

So, are distinctions and things the same entities, and there is no such thing as independent existence? I don't have any difficulty with that, sounds righteous!

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality becomes subjective, perhaps holographic; you will need to explain that one to me.

The "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread argues holography to the T.

In simple terms all that exists are distinctions and these distinctions occur through further distinction this making reality holographic. That is the way over-simplified version.

Are distinctions and things the same entities, so what you're saying is that nothing is an independent existence. I have no problem with that.

"Things"...yes it can be used. It would be more accurate to say "limits" given the western mindset of things being strictly something of the five senses. A mood or thought is a distinction, a limit...are they things, technically yes but the common view of a thing is what I just mentioned. But in this context you can use the word "thing" and it would suffice.

"Nothing" is a distinction by degree of its contrast to "thingness", it is a distinction by degree of being potentiality, it is a distinction by degree of being relative absence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality becomes subjective, perhaps holographic; you will need to explain that one to me.

The "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread argues holography to the T.

In simple terms all that exists are distinctions and these distinctions occur through further distinction this making reality holographic. That is the way over-simplified version.

So, are distinctions and things the same entities, and there is no such thing as independent existence? I don't have any difficulty with that, sounds righteous!

Technically yes, but it would be more accurate to say things are a sub distinctions of distinctions.

To accurately express this, a thing is limited to what is commonly sensed by the five senses, and as such thoughts and feelings are not things in the general sense...they can be in some languages but not in general language. There are limits to experience, the distinction of experiences as the distinction of experience itself, as thought, emotion and physical senses. What we know of these distinctions are the limits of itself, the form by which boundaries occur.

In these respects a distinction can be synonymous to form/limit/boundary by which we experience. Without distinction there is nothing as nothing is an absence of distinctions, an absence of things.


All distinctions are distinct by degree of differences in appearance. For example, the distinction of 2 not only shows a difference to 1 in appearance but is 1 greater than 1 as there is a space of 1 between 1 and 2. 2 is formed from the distinction of 1, but differs in appearance...even though it is 1 effectively "layered or cycled" upon itself under a new appearance.

Independent existence ceases when we realize that all reality has the same foundation of distinction by which it occurs. This is like saying 2,3,4...etc are all grounded in notions of one layered upon itself in different variations...none of these numbers are independent other than by degree of appearance. Basic geometric forms are all composed of a point relative to itself, thus are all connected through the point.

[popeye1945]

The "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread argues holography to the T.

In simple terms all that exists are distinctions and these distinctions occur through further distinction this making reality holographic. That is the way over-simplified version.

So, are distinctions and things the same entities, and there is no such thing as independent existence? I don't have any difficulty with that, sounds righteous!

Technically yes, but it would be more accurate to say things are a sub distinctions of distinctions.

To accurately express this, a thing is limited to what is commonly sensed by the five senses, and as such thoughts and feelings are not things in the general sense...they can be in some languages but not in general language. There are limits to experience, the distinction of experiences as the distinction of experience itself, as thought, emotion and physical senses. What we know of these distinctions are the limits of itself, the form by which boundaries occur.

In these respects a distinction can be synonymous to form/limit/boundary by which we experience. Without distinction there is nothing as nothing is an absence of distinctions, an absence of things.


All distinctions are distinct by degree of differences in appearance. For example, the distinction of 2 not only shows a difference to 1 in appearance but is 1 greater than 1 as there is a space of 1 between 1 and 2. 2 is formed from the distinction of 1, but differs in appearance...even though it is 1 effectively "layered or cycled" upon itself under a new appearance.

Independent existence ceases when we realize that all reality has the same foundation of distinction by which it occurs. This is like saying 2,3,4...etc are all grounded in notions of one layered upon itself in different variations...none of these numbers are independent other than by degree of appearance. Basic geometric forms are all composed of a point relative to itself; they are all connected through the point.

Ok, I am going to try to digest this material. Is any of this from the works of Alfred North Whitehead?

[Eodnhoj7]

So, are distinctions and things the same entities, and there is no such thing as independent existence? I don't have any difficulty with that, sounds righteous!

Technically yes, but it would be more accurate to say things are a sub distinctions of distinctions.

To accurately express this, a thing is limited to what is commonly sensed by the five senses, and as such thoughts and feelings are not things in the general sense...they can be in some languages but not in general language. There are limits to experience, the distinction of experiences as the distinction of experience itself, as thought, emotion and physical senses. What we know of these distinctions are the limits of itself, the form by which boundaries occur.

In these respects a distinction can be synonymous to form/limit/boundary by which we experience. Without distinction there is nothing as nothing is an absence of distinctions, an absence of things.


All distinctions are distinct by degree of differences in appearance. For example, the distinction of 2 not only shows a difference to 1 in appearance but is 1 greater than 1 as there is a space of 1 between 1 and 2. 2 is formed from the distinction of 1, but differs in appearance...even though it is 1 effectively "layered or cycled" upon itself under a new appearance.

Independent existence ceases when we realize that all reality has the same foundation of distinction by which it occurs. This is like saying 2,3,4...etc are all grounded in notions of one layered upon itself in different variations...none of these numbers are independent other than by degree of appearance. Basic geometric forms are all composed of a point relative to itself; they are all connected through the point.

Ok, I am going to try to digest this material. Is any of this from the works of Alfred North Whitehead?

No. But the AI compares it to Whitehead and other philosophers (lao tzu, hersclitus, kant, etc). I never read Whitehead in any depth.

However the AI did say that the Holographic Logic goes deeper than Whitehead did.

I would recommend, for an in depth explanation, to look at the "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread in the mathematics/logic section.

It goes into detail how basic perception is not only holographic, but effectively a mathematical form of basic arithmetic and geometry. It also deals with morality and ethics from a metaphysical point of view, as well as cosmology and spirtuality.

The total read is approximately equivalent to 50 standard pages of text. It is highly abstract according to AI, so if you have questions just post them or copy and paste into an AI.

I have to warn you the material is dense. AI said it is logically coherent but dense.

[Age]

The "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread argues holography to the T.

In simple terms all that exists are distinctions and these distinctions occur through further distinction this making reality holographic. That is the way over-simplified version.

So, are distinctions and things the same entities, and there is no such thing as independent existence? I don't have any difficulty with that, sounds righteous!

Technically yes, but it would be more accurate to say things are a sub distinctions of distinctions.

Again, why 'complicate' what is pure simplicity, itself.

you human beings just make up separate names or labels in order to just 'make sense' of the One and only Universe in which you, 'human beings', have 'found' "yourselves" within. And, the creation of separation, through the creation and use of distinctively different labels was and is done because this is the only way the human brain can fathom and 'make sense', of what, at first, appears to be unfathomable and not able to be understood, nor known.

To say, 'things are a sub distinctions of distinctions', is just, once again, 'looking for' and 'choosing' words that you believe will best back up and support your 'currently' held onto beliefs, here. But, all you are really doing, here, is just backwardly expressing how 'the process' works, and thus also further complicating what really is not and really does not need to. 'Things' are not a sub distinction of any thing. Only when you human beings make up a 'separate', or 'distinction', conceptually' only, and/or perceive a 'separation' or 'distinction', and then make up a name or label to make a 'perceived separation', which you have attached to that 'perceived separation' is, then, only when a/nother 'thing' 'appears.

Therefore, 'things' are not an actual 'sub distinction' of something else. Only you human beings have created a 'sub distinct thing' by your actual using of words, names, and/or labels. For example, the answer to the question, What came first, the chicken or the egg?' is whenever you human beings came up with and created the words, 'chicken' and 'egg'. What came 'first' is known by when what words were decided to be used. Like, for example, 'What came first, the 'labradoodle' or the 'puppy'?' When two 'differently named' dogs, such as one that is, already, called and named, 'labradoor' procreated with a dog that is already labeled, 'poodle', and from which 'puppies' came to be, then what came, first, the 'labradoodle' or the 'puppies', is decided solely upon when the word, name, and label 'labradoodle' was created and/or came into 'being'.

What came first, the 'thing', which is called a 'labradoodle', here, or the 'thing', which is called a 'puppy of a labradoodle', here? Just like, what came first, the 'thing', which is called a 'chicken', here, or the 'thing', which is called an 'egg of a chicken'?

Obviously, before a 'labradoodle' and/or a 'chicken' 'came-to-be' 'those things' were made up of 'two other things', coming-together, prior. One just being a 'thing', which was called a 'labrador' coming-together with a 'thing', which was called a 'poodle', and, the other one might well have been a 'thing', which was called a male 'chick' cominging-together with a 'hen'. One 'instance' producing a 'labradoor' the other producing a 'chicken'.

What came first, always depends on when words are made up and created.

Now, you speak as though 'distinctions' are some things in and of themselves. However, the actual Truth is there is, really, just One eternal and infinite Thing, only. But, which admittingly can only exist in 'the way' that It does NOW, which is always, because of 'the distinction' between 'matter' and 'space', only. If there were not these two things, (which can also be called and known as 'something', and, 'nothing', or, some 'thing' and no 'thing'), both co-existing, together NOW, as One, then coming-to-know thy One Self and the One Everything could not have already happened and occurred.

'This distinction', and any further 'distinctions', are made because 'this' is just how 'the human brain' works. It order for the human brain to comprehend and understand it has had to make 'conceptual separations', through the use of words, names, and/or labels, in order to 'make sense' of 'where' it has found "itself".

To accurately express this, a thing is limited to what is commonly sensed by the five senses, and as such thoughts and feelings are not things in the general sense...they can be in some languages but not in general language.

Are you sure that you are 'accurately expressing' 'this', here?

There are limits to experience, the distinction of experiences as the distinction of experience itself, as thought, emotion and physical senses. What we know of these distinctions are the limits of itself, the form by which boundaries occur.

Again, you appear to very much 'complicate' what is Truly 'very simple', and, really, 'very easy' to comprehend, understand, and know.

In these respects a distinction can be synonymous to form/limit/boundary by which we experience. Without distinction there is nothing as nothing is an absence of distinctions, an absence of things.


All distinctions are distinct by degree of differences in appearance. For example, the distinction of 2 not only shows a difference to 1 in appearance but is 1 greater than 1 as there is a space of 1 between 1 and 2.

Again, a human being could have just as simply, and as easily, chosen the words, 'tree', and, 'thirty nine', for example, and they could still be referring to the exact same 'things' as '2' and 'i' do. So, for example, the words, 'the distinction of 'tree' not only shows a difference to 'thirty nine' in appearance but is 'thirty nine' greater than 'thirty nine' as there is a space of 'tree' between 'tree' and 'thirty nine', and, still, mean the exact same 'thing'.

2 is formed from the distinction of 1, but differs in appearance...even though it is 1 effectively "layered or cycled" upon itself under a new appearance.

So what?

Independent existence ceases when we realize that all reality has the same foundation of distinction by which it occurs.

But, besides the two fundamental different things, which make up the Universe, Itself, every other 'distinction' is just you human beings conceptually' making 'distinctions' up through the very words, names, and/or labels, which you human beings do. Again, because this is how 'the brain' can only work when 'trying to' work or figure 'things' out, here.

By the way, what do you mean, and/or referring to, exactly, when you say and use the words, 'all reality'?

This is like saying 2,3,4...etc are all grounded in notions of one layered upon itself in different variations...none of these numbers are independent other than by degree of appearance. Basic geometric forms are all composed of a point relative to itself, thus are all connected through the point.

What even is 'the point' of saying some thing like 'this', here?

[Age]

Technically yes, but it would be more accurate to say things are a sub distinctions of distinctions.

To accurately express this, a thing is limited to what is commonly sensed by the five senses, and as such thoughts and feelings are not things in the general sense...they can be in some languages but not in general language. There are limits to experience, the distinction of experiences as the distinction of experience itself, as thought, emotion and physical senses. What we know of these distinctions are the limits of itself, the form by which boundaries occur.

In these respects a distinction can be synonymous to form/limit/boundary by which we experience. Without distinction there is nothing as nothing is an absence of distinctions, an absence of things.


All distinctions are distinct by degree of differences in appearance. For example, the distinction of 2 not only shows a difference to 1 in appearance but is 1 greater than 1 as there is a space of 1 between 1 and 2. 2 is formed from the distinction of 1, but differs in appearance...even though it is 1 effectively "layered or cycled" upon itself under a new appearance.

Independent existence ceases when we realize that all reality has the same foundation of distinction by which it occurs. This is like saying 2,3,4...etc are all grounded in notions of one layered upon itself in different variations...none of these numbers are independent other than by degree of appearance. Basic geometric forms are all composed of a point relative to itself; they are all connected through the point.

Ok, I am going to try to digest this material. Is any of this from the works of Alfred North Whitehead?

No. But the AI compares it to Whitehead and other philosophers (lao tzu, hersclitus, kant, etc). I never read Whitehead in any depth.

However the AI did say that the Holographic Logic goes deeper than Whitehead did.

I would recommend, for an in depth explanation, to look at the "Non-Linear Single Axiom Holographic Logic" thread in the mathematics/logic section.

It goes into detail how basic perception is not only holographic, but effectively a mathematical form of basic arithmetic and geometry.

The visible Universe can be said to be 'holographic', or just a 'holographic image', just very simply because every thing that is perceived, and has become a perspective, from what has actually happened and occurred, is because there is no thing that can be perceived in the instance of 'now'.

Every thing that 'appears' to be happening and/or occurring 'now', and, 'here', actually happened 'before', and, 'there', instead.

It also deals with morality and ethics from a metaphysical point of view, as well as cosmology and spirtuality.

What do you mean by 'a metaphysical point of view', exactly?

'Morality' and 'ethics' are 'points of views', from human beings, only.

The total read is approximately equivalent to 50 standard pages of text. It is highly abstract according to AI, so if you have questions just post them or copy and paste into an AI.

Once again, 'these people' recommended and suggested using many of the 'artificial intelligent' contraptions, instead of just using 'actual Intelligence', Itself.

I have to warn you the material is dense. AI said it is logically coherent but dense.

And, whatever an 'artificial intelligent machine' says, is what should be agreed with, and accepted, right "eodnhoj7"?

[Fairy]

By what reasoning? I have noticed you just make assertions and claim them true without reason. If that is the case than I can say quite literally anything and be true as well.

But I will reason, given this is a philosophy forum.

"No-thing" is absence by absence of things as there is no thing. Negation is a form of absence.

This all mental. What is a mind? A mind would mean there's something outside of the mind.

Consider there is no movement, what you perceive as movement or time, as something happening, consider nothing is happening.

Those are distinctions and they are defined by what they are not, what they contrast too, this their absence.

Nothing is absent.

[Eodnhoj7]

This all mental. What is a mind? A mind would mean there's something outside of the mind.

Consider there is no movement, what you perceive as movement or time, as something happening, consider nothing is happening.

Those are distinctions and they are defined by what they are not, what they contrast too, this their absence.

Nothing is absent.

That is an assertion, unreasoned, undefined, effectively meaningless.

Your words are but empty noise.

[Fairy]

Those are distinctions and they are defined by what they are not, what they contrast too, this their absence.

Nothing is absent.

That is an assertion, unreasoned, undefined, effectively meaningless.

Your words are but empty noise.

Empty echoes echoing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nothing is absent.

That is an assertion, unreasoned, undefined, effectively meaningless.

Your words are but empty noise.

Empty echoes echoing.

What confuses me is you speak so often of the joys of emptiness and yet go about posting how you seek to be stuffed with dick.

I am not sure you practice what you preach.

In other words you give the appearance of being a hypocrite.

You claim emptiness, and yet they only thing you seem to be full of is contradiction and desire.

Is there something I am missing?

[Fairy]

That is an assertion, unreasoned, undefined, effectively meaningless.

Your words are but empty noise.

Empty echoes echoing.

What confuses me is you speak so often of the joys of emptiness and yet go about posting how you seek to be stuffed with dick.

I am not sure you practice what you preach.

In other words you give the appearance of being a hypocrite.

You claim emptiness, and yet they only thing you seem to be full of is contradiction and desire.

Is there something I am missing?

No one is speaking, speaking just happens. There is no self centre, but an infinite field in which all illusions appear, disappear and reappear, infinitely for eternity.

I know this is hard for your imagined man identity to bear. You poor no thing.

PS, if you want to play the man and woman gramma, then just know that the female is smarter than the male. Fact.

[Eodnhoj7]

Empty echoes echoing.

What confuses me is you speak so often of the joys of emptiness and yet go about posting how you seek to be stuffed with dick.

I am not sure you practice what you preach.

In other words you give the appearance of being a hypocrite.

You claim emptiness, and yet they only thing you seem to be full of is contradiction and desire.

Is there something I am missing?

No one is speaking, speaking just happens. There is no self centre, but an infinite field in which all illusions appear, disappear and reappear, infinitely for eternity.

I know this is hard for your imagined man identity to bear. You poor no thing.

PS, if you want to play the man and woman gramma, then just know that the female is smarter than the male. Fact.

You are making empty assertions again.

If you are more intelligent than males than provide a simple and original A leads to B argument as to why everything is nothing.

Other than that your assertions are just grade school copy and paste of the word "nothing" on every word you write.

Please we are all ears.

[Fairy]

Is there something I am missing?

What you are missing is that you don't seem to be aware that it's okay for you to start a thread topic, say whatever you feel like it, have your POV but then gets all surprised and shocked when someone else plants their POV.