What is the greatest thing?

What is the greatest thing?

keep describing the universe and include QM/R, then make a description of reality which you think does describes it. Whatever that given description is, there will always be the class of things it doesn’t include [infinity doesn’t have the finite etc].

what we have is then is the ultimate [indescribable] reality, the ‘entity’ that is infinite and is finite - so is greater than
But includes them both. It is too great to be defined in any way, and that allows it to be infinite in the sense of being unlimited, but we cannot then go on to give it infinite dimension or pattern [e.g. Fractal], as that would always be less than the greatest thing, and hence an >expression of< the greatest thing. That is to say, Reality will always be something else other than or more than whatever we try to describe it as being. In that we may also call it the simplest thing.

This doesn’t make it less real that our perceived reality! Yours or our total reality will always be less real than reality itself, hence ‘The Indescribable Reality’ is always greater that anything we consider to be real.

Is there anything wrong with this?

Pt2

‘The force’ or primary drive.
As there are infinities which do not describe the whole, and which are limited by simply being a dimension or given other form which is >less than the greater<, the infinite is ‘distorted’ as if pulled out from the void. As we have only been describing infinities, it is logical to assume that this is a permanent feature i.e. That the drive is equally eternal.

Finally, we can reasonably deduce that all informations, qualities, particles and forces, are not of the infinite set [being ‘finite’]. The physical universe IS LESS REAL than the eternal.

Pt3

Our conscious ‘experience’ of the drive is informed through sensory information, though the drive is before, during and after any of that occurs. Necessarily the drive is prior to and all affecting, and hence not particular to you nor any individual. Thus universally the drive/s of the ‘desires’ of individual entities and people, are indirect.

Pt4
cosmically, everything must be joined together at some level, this due to the ultimate oneness of the indescribable reality. WE ARE CONNECTED!

note; I said all of that without religious reference.

_

Descendants, Skepticism, God.

These are the greatest things, and nothing surpasses them.

If something surpasses our descendants, we become extinct.
If something surpasses our skepticism, we loose the need to reconsider.
If something surpasses God, the universe ceases.

You presume a direction, and the very imposition of direction contaminates the mind and our capacity to retain static assumptions of axiomatic values… every rule moves either WITH, or RESISTS AGAINST the operator.

Essentially, by presuming logic patterns evolution and not the other way around, you have the audacity to insist it conforms to presumptions about it, and the resulted projection IS the phenomena that determines phenomena, that our rules are empirically based upon.

This is absurd. You have hardly desecularised the language of science. You rest your solid facts on a far greater delusional theology than any witch doctor has managed to develop about cosmogony.

Isn’t this essentially what your doing, a reverse cosmogony? Methods trace in reverse of some operations, but still seeking the same ends?

Ye of overwhelming faith… you should be elected Pope with these sorts of insights. Your grasp into the nature of the unseen dialectic astonishes me. Your Jedi Master of Metaphysics.

Read my fortune for me, of all the things that surpass me, and surpasses them. I want your insights to the world after tomorrow.

Perhaps the “direction” is not a singular vector. Rather then a specific radian, substitute >all< in the equation. Still a direction, just not nearly as specific.

But, what if, God is such a presumption? That neds no direction, vortex? This is no inference toward a phenomenology, nor a cosmology. The beginning is such a directional presumption, and presuming the beginning prior to the end, is again the same.
Descendency is a presumption, whereby based on the logic of ordered succession.

Without presumptive ontology, cosmology would be incomprehensible. So it is a way of being in the world, that presumption arises out of necessity. God becomes a necessary presumption. So, the absolutes of infinity and nothingness, of Being and Nothingness recycle themselves in eternally presumptive and indistinct patterns. Distinction is a function of discernment, as related to spatio-temporal determinants of axiomatic recognition.(of distinction)

What do you mean infinity doesnt have the finite? It has an infinite amount of finite things. Without the finite, infinity would be nothing.

Indeed, and the op suggests there is nothing initially linear about the whole thing. But also nothing singular e.g Prophets of god, we are not ‘special’ and the theory requires nor adds nothing as the ultimate reality. Not God nor nirvana unless this is what the Buddhist mean by that, but this isn’t a mere state of mind.
There is just reality and it has direction/force/drive, it’s a bit like an engine that never stops.

That which is in the class ‘infinite’, is not the same as nor includes that of the class of finites. You cannot logically have ‘an infinite amount of finite’ that would be absurd.

As far as i can tell ~ in terms of the supposed ‘infinite repetition’, there isn’t nor can be any instances of sameness! Given the nature of the greater reality, if there were a thing identical to another thing, it would automatically exist in the same time and spatial location, but as there is already that thing then a duplicate cannot arise. There is not a denumerable or other amount of other ‘you’s.

As ‘you’ are connected to the greater reality, at the highest level you are one with that! = nirvana [but in Druidic terms, reality is a place and an entity [Caugant the divine infinite] rather than a personal liberation and state of mind.

I dont agree with the logic behind this.

Infinite sets are composed of finite materials. The number infinity, is a series of finite numbers. An infinite universe, is comprised of finite atoms.

Infinite, contains the finite.

Why would an identical object automatically exist in the same time and spatial location?
That does not follow.

With DNA it is quite easy to make clones, almost 100 percent identical. A DNA clone is not magically transported to another dimension upon creation.

A thing that is described by the superlative form of the adjective ‘great’?

Oh you mean to ask the question philosophically. Nevermind then. Anything I say can be philosophically described as ‘great’, and therefore nothing great can be certain to me. For example, something not great can be defined as being great at having no greatness. I prefer not to play these language games.

What then can I know for certain about the concept ‘great’ if I employ it philosophically, and how exactly can this concept be practically used?

Have a great day!

That pizza tasted great.

You are a great, big fat ass.

Oh great.

That is the greatest movie of all time.

If you could sit over there, that would be great.

In each example I know what the word means by how it is used. Each context is a kind of life activity in which there is only a surface of meaning. Of course we could discuss the meaning of the word great in each example, but that discussion would itself still remain on the surface and have nothing mysterious underneath it. There would be no philosophical or metaphysical content to the meaning of the word unless it was separated from the ordinary activity in which it was used, like this:

I cannot begin to understand what you mean here. If you mean to say ‘we cannot perceive everything that exists’, I understand, because there are things floating around in space that I can’t see. But when you say ‘indescribable reality is greater than anything we consider real’, I haven’t the slightest idea what you mean.

What’s interesting… well not really but I’ll say it’s interesting so as not to offend the philosophers here… is that there were responses to the OP as if what you said was understood by the people who responded. Here, a language game develops in which there needn’t be any clarity or certainty of definition in order for a conversation to proceed about what appears to be a real question. But because it isn’t a real question, no answer can be wrong. Hence, the activity in this thread (and so many more here at ILP).

Trixie

To the point being made here, infinite things are not the same as finite things and the greater reality comprises of at least both and is thus that which includes both spheres. Any two spheres [or any set of things] must be within a third comprising sphere, hence the greater reality is more than either and both. If you look hard enough you wont find any finite things, you will only find approximations of that ~ an appearance of finiteness. Equally you wont find anything which is infinite, just the idea or principle.

It wouldn’t, [the point I was making] you only get individuality - which was my point against infinite recurrence. If we are reborn in other universes or whathaveyou, it will be a different you in a different body, hence no reoccurrence of ‘you’ happens.

If another identical you stood next to you, you wouldn’t think it was you and it would be someone else. The point is that an assumed infinite continuance isn’t assured simply by repetition. More fundamentally, you cant have two identical things because they will always have ulterior spatial locations.

Zoot

A meaningless conflation of terms? I meant literally what is the greatest thing, and it is not made vague by calling it ‘philosophical’.

We consider the universe to be our reality. Reality is greater/bigger more than. We consider emptiness to be not real because it doesn’t contain the things we consider to be ‘real’.

What wasn’t clear in the op? The main statement is that reality is greater than its parts and their containers. As our descriptions necessarily come within the context of ‘thing’s’ or in the universe, or the world of known or unknown things, and as such cannot describe what is greater than them and the collection of things.
What is so difficult to comprehend?

_

With numbers you eventually get denumerable amounts and math becomes unknowable. Here I am saying the same thing but linguistically and in terms of meaning.

Reality is philosophically denumerable.

So then I was right when I said this:

“If you mean to say ‘we cannot perceive everything that exists’, I understand, because there are things floating around in space that I can’t see.”

That’s all you really meant, but the way you tried to articulate this point was philosophically extraneous.

Why you made it so philosophically difficult and complicated when your point was rather simple.

Zoot

What we perceive and what our reality is are not the same, the perceived reality is far less than the collection of thing composing our reality. Equally ‘our’ reality is greater than anyone in particulars reality. I was trying to point out that some ‘realities’ are lesser than others - point of thread.

The point isn’t simple, it’s the most difficult thing out there. We say what is physical is real, and nothingness is not real, but if the op is correct then that’s not true and the physical is not more real than emptiness [as described in op].

The implications are vast!

e.g. the spirit is more real than the body.

_

Translation: there is something that I don’t know exists, that exists.

^^ yes, it was a simple point really.

You can’t do that, Morpheus. It’s philosophically illegal. A logical positivist would have you shot for saying something like that.

Lol for sure but sometimes things are as simple and straight forwards as they purport to be.

the message in the op is really quite simple, though I may not have stated it philosophically correctly I think one knows what’s being said.

So theres no such thing as finite things, or infinite things.

Thats one sphere, not three.

Dark matter.

No one thinks of Love any more.

… or is that merely “many splendored”?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbs8EfgE4EI[/youtube]

Well, It’s certainly as inexplicable as dark matter.

For me, anything that is mostly unexplainable, mysterious, almost impossible to understand is the greatest.

That would be different things to different people - perception.