Implausables?

Are eternity and infinity different?

How do NEEds ( near death experiences relate )?

Will we ever find out?

Eternity is never beginning or ending… a baffling concept that we know is true.

Infinity is beginning but never ending, a crazy concept, but more intuitive to us.

I agree, intuition over reason, at times befuddles the mind, and it is increasingly becoming more accepted withon intelligent circles.

I like the word transfinite more than infinite.

Infinity? , the word, may be eclipsed by trans-finite, meaning it is through the finite that we can think of the infinite, in order to reach it? Or, is the infinite a given .minimum to aspire to gain a foothold into the paradigmn experience of the finite
Sounds familiar? Or is a mathematical description may be analogous in Cantor’s set theory?

More questions then answers dont invalidate the coming closure of the circle.

Questions! Where would we be without questions? Maybe it is implausible to think that we could have communication without questions and leave the rest to statements to exchange knowledge, understanding, and the closure of the circle.

Of course they are different.

Are there seriously still some true materialists here? Thats so sad.
Its been untenable for a century now, scientifically speaking.

Yes, existence precludes finity. Infinity is necessary for there to be existence.

Eternity is merely one aspect of infinity.

Fixed Cross says:

“Yes, existence precludes finity. Infinity is necessary for there to be existence.”

Therefore there fore conscious realization of existence is a caveat to this necessity? Right? We cannot maintain necessity of existence without 'knowing" it.

Knowing ,further, entails realization that time and space are somehow categorically different , yet how do we really ascertain these ideal forms of reference or ideas?

We refer to these formal ideas of reference by presumptive logic

Relatively speaking space and time are somehow dependent on each other but how?

Pretend I was the ‘real’ Meno, and I need to be enlightened

The questions I would ask back then would not imply urgency, with a need to facilitate ‘knowledge’ but with a motive to compensate the accelarating rate of insecurity between me , and the other.

The analogy is in need of realization of the newer version between necessary and contingent relationships.

And I am not agreeing with You for the sake of disagreeing, but only to point to axioatic narratives. The structural manifestations become imperative , as You seem to come to Your conclusions

They signal the formation of the required necessity of ideal structural difference ( between space and time: eternity and infinity) for existence or the “knowledge” of existence to continue. Refeterntially it’s not probative yet it needs an objective reassemblage into unity.

In other words, how do we come to know this of what we know of these relationships?

It’s notable that :

Knowledge comes from the Greek word, Gnosis, signifying knowing through observation or experience.

I guess the former refers to temporal endlessness while the latter refers to quantitative and spatial endlessness. :-k

Some people think NDEs are evidence of an immortal (and infinite) soul that survives bodily death.

The concept of the soul is ambiguous to me. What I am about to say is implausible to so many people I have spoken to no matter how clearly I think I explain it. I believe the “I”, the thing that makes me feel like, I am “I”, or, I am me is indestructible but the reason we don’t remember anything from a previous life is that “I” needs to be attached to a machine that produces mind and memory, ie. the brain. I feel that “I” is separate from being conscious. When we die, the “I” is still there but we have no consciousness of it. I don’t know - it is too hard to explain but the soul remains ambiguous. I to me is just a point of reference.

:confused:

Yep, I just confused myself - don’t worry.

It is great that the word had origins in human thought but this is not to say that what it represents does not have an origin outside of human experience.
Just saying.

Quite. I think that’s true in my case anyway.

No, I mean, you dissect, where I consider the object of study as one thread in a larger fabric. It’s what Ive been given to see.
Time and space are the same thing, infinity is not merely spatial and temporal but more so, qualitative in general. (perhaps in this light I can go so far as to suggest time and space are both ‘qualities’ but that would merely distract. Yet here it is)

Or, in case of more basic minds: as basic experience.

One simple way:
Because time cant be measured if not for travel through space of some energy, and space cant be measured except throughout a timespan.

A matter of looking at the surface (time space) and not at the core, or deeper layers at least - quality, and value.

Reasons for existence to exist.
Where “reason” is obviously a derivative - climb that derivative up its own root to the core.

I am not a Kantian or even a Spinozean, much less an Aristotelean -
Categories within derivatives of the absolute do not mean much to me.

My type of categories; penetrating and trivial.
E.g. Penetrating relationships vs trivial ones.

My axioms never derive from language. Ive never trusted language to that degree. I am a poet after all and a logician. I cant afford to use my wax as my hands, my stone as my hammer.

Language is my bitch, not my queen. Yet also my knight, and not my peasant. Let us say it is my mud, my clay, from which I produce fields of fertility where others produce golems.

I dont believe that truth resides inside some deep consequence of langue. Language is one of truths toys.

Reiterating; infinity doesn’t reduce to space. Its not a quality of space, as eternity is of time.

Speaking for myself: by mounting Sleipnir.

Yes, gignosko - I know.

Of course we know through experience, and what we experience, we know - “I know” - “I have experienced” –

that is clear.
But,

What is given to experience to whom, and why?

By which quality?

The tastiest knowledge is far from universal.

Some people claim to remember things from previous lives.

Can you say anything more about this essential and indestructible part of you?

It may be indestructible, but do you think it changes?

Does anything happen to it during incarnations and if so, are the changes permanent or does it reset to an eternal default every time after bodily death?

Does anything happen to it in between incarnations?

Do you think brains/bodies behave differently depending on which soul or I inhabits them?

How do you know it’s there, just an intuition?

I am very rudely going to reply to questions asked to someone else. Encode, I tab this so as not to preempt your thought process.

[tab]

As I accept it, it’s a form of integrity, and we recognize it in questions of integrity - how we confront and take them, what we make of ourselves through them - if we become stronger or weaker in the integrity of our values (with each other)

It increases in richness, wealth of qualities, depths, powers to experience - but only if it increases in integrity. Structural integrity, like in a building, depends on how much can be carried.

Acquisition of greater integrity would in principle be lasting, like increased atomic purity. After all the greater the integrity the harder it is to destroy.

Ive read interesting stuff about this in Rudolph Steiner. Because it’s not my own experience or reasoning I won’t reproduce it. Still he’s the only one I’d recommend reading on this, as his approach is most thorough and self-consistent, as well as consistent with the quite ruthless logics of existentialism. He’s no moralist.

The body would be a reflection of the ‘soul’.

Our astrological natal chart with its progressions (slow change over time) and synastries (connections to charts of people close to us) is read as a map to the soul, or incarnate Individuality as it is called in Western Occultism

I find all this rather plausible because, like conservation of momentum and energy, we are really talking about conservation of structural integrity, and this extends, if we look at reaction patterns, to conservation of value-structures- What is most hard-won,- that for which what people often call moral courage (morality as code, courage as the resilience of that code) is required, may be that which is most truly gained. What I say here does not include my own experiences in these terms, as I cant possibly convince anyone of their objective reality; what I offer is logical patterns in which we might perhaps conceive of such things as real.[/tab]

Brains and bodies behave differently depending on the “soul” embedded within because of consciousness, time/space, and positional displacement that each separate entity is made up of - but this adds a new dimension which would take the questioning outside the realm of what you are interested in from me. The I has to be there, right? Are you not aware of yourself? Something is pointing at your awareness or indicating your awareness. As soon as I remember something from my previous life, I will be sure to let you know. Seriously though, I did have a peculiar experience a long time ago. Since we are on the topic of implausibles I will briefly remember a guy in a show acting as a physicist who asked himself this question: Why is it that we only remember the past and not the future? To which the mathematician said: Having one of those days, are we? I think it was something like this.

That is a lot of questions - it looks like some of these can be blended to get a ratio of fewer answers to questions. The net result is sufficient for the input. I am asking myself this question right now: how many dimensions do we need before we gain insight? This varies with the situation and the person I guess. I shy away from one person’s set system of thinking and favor my own as I believe you should too. Why? Because when someone explains something to you that you already have some knowledge of(or indeed no knowledge of) your net result will be different from their understanding. It is for this reason that we can find satisfying answers in different corners of our own existence. Finally, what I think is important is in fact relative to some error and some accuracy…favoring accuracy - it is, for this reason, I think it is important that the majority of our own thoughts must be complementary to each other.

Do you think that…hmm…let us pick Einstein because everyone knows Einstein, right? Often referred to as a genius - not everyone agrees to him being a genius but I am sure most people can agree that he is often referred to as a genius. The real question is, was Einstein a genius in every life before this life, and will he be a genius in every life hereafter? Was that one or two questions? Or perhaps three? OK, let us not get lost here.

Please, allow me to quote someone - what they offer gets closer to the heart of my own thoughts, and besides, why should I have all the fun:

This is not exactly what I believe for reasons I have already given. This offers some separation in much the same way that I do.

Change is very likely to be constant. Things have changed since the big bang(if this is something you want to believe), however, if we may consider one more quote from the same website that I got my last quote from:

Fairly illustrative of how my thoughts are structured but not entirely what I believe. For me the I points at the awareness. I is a more pure thing. There are infinite ways I could express my thoughts about any of this but it will never ever be the same in your head as in mine.

I believe you were only wanting some of my thoughts and not some rigorous attempt at explanation. If not then I apologize.

What I do know is that the way I think has very real consequences outside my head and that is where I place the value of my thoughts.
Can I do anything real and tangible with my thoughts? The answer is a simple, yes. Apparently pretty well too.

Anyway, thank you for stopping by this little universe of population less than ten.

Hmm, I think I might buy a set of Russian dolls.

:-k