Words that mean ‘Everything’ 1) Actuality 2) reality 3) dimensions 4) Experience
All these words (and any word) can be proven to mean ‘Everything’ if in their 0 state (when you make them 0) and they equal 0 Everything - they cover Everything.
I don’t see why this needed a new thread, but anyway …
Wouldn’t these all constitute parts of “everything”?
Also: how is experience (a product of consciousness) everything? This is why I asked you were you solipsist; that you seem to be saying that “everything” is just experience i.e. a product of consciousness.
NO, 1) Actuality 2) reality 3) dimensions 4) Experience actually constitute parts of EVERYTHING. if you have 0 Actuality it must equal 0 Everything. If you have 0 Reality it must equal 0 Everything. If you have 0 dimensions it must equal 0 Everything. If you have 0 experience it must equal 0 Everything. However, the exception to ‘0 Everything’ would be 0 Nature or 0 Limit. So its NOT 0 EVERYTHING.
yes, Everything is just experience because with 0 experience there would be 0 Everything.
apaosha, (read this sentence carefully) experience arises out of consciousness, if experience is everything, then consciousness is everything. yes, you cannot have experience without consciousness, that makes them both have the value of Everything… but is ‘my’ experience everything, or is ALL experience Everything? You cannot have a lake without a drop. Perhaps my consciousness/experience is THE drop that makes Everything possible, so, consciousness/experience is possibility, Not Everything. On the contrary, I still maintain 0 Experience = 0 Everything. That means any consciousness that can lose all Experience would thereforth become 0 Everything.
Experience is a product of an individual entities subjective consciousness; which in turn is a product of said entities physical form - which isn’t everything.
Unless you want to go with solipsism, that is, which states that “everything” is a product of an individuals consciousness; in which case, you would be right …
I’m talking about the illusion of death, not EVERYTHING. I believe there is more than individuals consciousness (objective reality) - My theory on afterlife involves 0 Experience. And I believe 0 Experience is 0 Everything - I don’t claim that it is EVERYTHING - my ONLY claim is 0 Experience = 0 Everything.
(ok, I think 0 Everything is a giant contradiction if you are not aware of the contradictions - so call it 0 reality <like i said, using other words of Everything as identical >) Here it’s said again with ‘0 reality’:
I’m talking about the illusion of death, not EVERYTHING. I believe there is more than individuals consciousness (objective reality) - My theory on afterlife involves 0 Experience. And I believe 0 Experience is 0 reality- I don’t claim that it is EVERYTHING - my ONLY claim is 0 Experience = 0 reality.
Most people cannot make my point very knowledge extensive. I dont think I’m doing very well either.
its nothingness. Its neither painful nor pleasurable. bad nor good. Boring nor interesting… You get the picture. its absolute please versus relative peace.
Why do you have to experience the afterlife? Why can’t you not just BE the afterlife. Does a rock have to experience being a rock? (or rather, CAN a rock experience at all?) No. A rock just IS a rock. A rock cannot experience. It is not alive.
Humans find experience compelling, but to me, the afterlife is about being, not becoming.
An afterlife implies conscious awareness on the part of the subject. If you mean what happens to the atoms and such that make up the person after their death and what happens them as they are changed or recycled into something else, then I suppose that this could be tenuosly described as an “after-life” event, if you like.
I agree with apaosha. It does sound like solipsism (or some kind of subjectivism).
But I remember you saying in another thread that there’s a difference between “Everything” and “EVERYTHING”. Is EVERYTHING the absolute, objective, ontological state of existence, and Everything something more subjective (like what we perceive to be everything)?
Gib, I admire your attempts of clearification. What I’m attempting is clearly Beyond the limits of thought. Noone can solve it becuase we cannot prove we Become 0 experience. Perhaps its provable ‘0 human experience’ but not 0 Experience. My life/death solution simply doesn’t work <the one that referrs to 0 Experience> (This is why ‘0 experience’ is NOT Provable By mere death): Life = Experience… Death = 0 life… therefore, Death = (Not ‘0 experience’ ) but: 0 experience of life.
If you want to prove there is 0 Experience the ONLY way I can see is contingency on definition. INstead of using life/death try relative/absolute… since they are Not proven definitions you can only go by definition (for the most genocidal concept known) Nothingness defies the reason of human life and concentrates Not on becoming, but nothing. however Genocidal and destructive I see no such properties in the concept (only from the point of view of living to dying do I see Destruction - not in the concept itself). It is neither destruction nor growth, bad nor good, it is basically the End of Duality.
Like I said ‘relative/absolute’: 1) relative = Everything 2) Absolute = 0 relative 3) therefore, Absolute = 0 Everything. Now, there is a contradiction in this I must point out. namely, why isn’t the relative Absolute in being relative? the ONLY reason I believe death is Absolute is becuase I find it impossible for death to be relative. death = not relative. As for possibility it could destroy the whole idea - there may be more than just the opposites Relative/Absolute.
Yes, this makes sense. It’s basically the question of: does experience ever end? It seems fair to say that human experience certainly ends at death, but does this bring us into a state of total utter unconsciousness, or do we go on to experience “non-human” kinds of experiences?
This paragraph is a little too cryptic for me. Let me pick it apart and ask some question.
So life=relative and death=absolute. Fair enough, but why did you pick these terms? Why is life “relative” and death “absolute”?
What do you mean by a “proven definition”? Do you mean that it is not proven that life=relative and death=absolute?
And where does “genocide” fit into all this? Are you refering to a hypothetical situation in which all life is wiped out of existence and therefore there is 0 life and 100% death?
So do you mean that genocide and destruction describes the process of dying, but not the state of death itself (i.e. the state after which the process of dying has been completed)?
Now that’s an interesting thing to say. Sounds to me like what you’re getting at is that the state of death is the only state one can be in in order to resolve the conceptual problems of the mind/matter duality (or the perception/reality duality). It sounds to me like you’re saying that the state of death is neither life (as we humans experience life) nor nothingness, neither consciousness nor unconscious matter, neither perception nor reality - rather it is a third way of being - a way of being in which dualism doesn’t play a role. Is it fair to call this an “experience”?
I think I see what you’re saying. If something is relative, we could say that it is absolutely relative. That may be a problem, but it seems soluble with some clever thinking (not that I’m going to try right now ).
Maybe I’ll ask about the role possibility plays in your idea later. For now, just let me know if I’m on the right track.
Gib, fundamentally the idea is improvable. ALL words for Everything are a curiosity only. I cannot prove at all We lose more than we actually are. If I have human consciousness I cannot prove we lose MORE than human consciousness. All that we can prove is we do inevitably lose human consciousness.
I’m glad you entertain my ideas but I feel like I’m talking in tautology. 'Of course we lose human consciousness at death - but its impossible to prove we become 0 consciousness - its a certainty with an uncertainty.
).