The Eternally Radiant Shapelessness

[Relinquish]

The fact that the universe is utterly inextricable from 'shape' (which cannot exist at all without 'constraint') directly indicates that it is absolutely dependent. In other words, the universe cannot occur without a 'Cause'.

In this sense, the universe can be regarded as the 'Eternal Radiance' of Causeless Shapelessness itself.

In truth, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually conceptually delineated, 'apparently discernable impermanent features' of this Radiance.

Evidently, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a 'tree') exists in a state of constant change, which is to say that 'the tree' is in fact a 'process' rather than a 'thing'. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are naturally comprised of 'other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other processes', and are naturally comprised of 'other other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between 'the tree' and 'not the tree'. As such, neither 'the tree' nor 'not the tree' exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL 'particular processes', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You').

In truth, the necessary distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all.

If this Radiance COULD have had another shape, It WOULD have had another shape.

Because there is no way to know why It COULDN'T have had another shape, there is no way to know why It has the shape that It has.

Likewise, the true nature of the Causeless Shapelessness (that is to say, the actual reason WHY It is radiant at all, and why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within It's Radiance) is absolutely unknowable.

If the 'ceaseless change' that is this Radiance had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, this 'ceaseless change' MUST be eternally cyclic.

Apparently, some of the 'conscious features' of the Radiance are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings.

This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex conscious features (a.k.a. intelligent body/mind life-forms) that all the apparently discernable features of the Radiance (including themselves) are in fact 'solely self-inclusive forms' (which is to say, that they are all fundamentally existing separate things that have their own independent nature), and that they themselves have their own personal consciousness and are the separate, autonomous originators of their own particular movements.

As such, the absolute harmony that naturally exists between all the features of the Radiance seems to be 'hidden' from these hypnotized conscious features. Instead, they perceive a situation that seems confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening. This is the illusion of multiplicity, seperateness and duality. Perceiving this, the hypnotized conscious features are bound to suffer.

Where this hypnosis is not present, there can be no suffering.

Because after all, there is ONLY Radiant Shapelessness.

 

Thanks for reading. ☺

[Strange]

58 minutes ago, Relinquish said:

The fact that the universe is utterly inextricable from 'shape'

Is it? Evidence needed.

59 minutes ago, Relinquish said:

which cannot exist at all without 'constraint'

Really? Citation needed.

59 minutes ago, Relinquish said:

directly indicates that it is absolutely dependent.

Dependent on what? Clarity needed.

59 minutes ago, Relinquish said:

In other words, the universe cannot occur without a 'Cause'.

Non-sequitur. Rational argument needed.

 

As for the rest: tl;dr.

[Relinquish]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

Is it? Evidence needed.

Really? Citation needed.

Dependent on what? Clarity needed.

Non-sequitur. Rational argument needed.

 

As for the rest: tl;dr.

Thanks for your engaging reply, Strange. ☺

 

Firstly, no, I don't believe that evidence IS needed to support my claims that there can be no such thing as either a shapeless universe or an unconstrained shape. These are both self evident facts that are ultimately SO obvious that they can very easily be overlooked, so I'm just pointing them out.

 

If the existence of a shape is absolutely dependent upon it's constraint, then it's constraint can also be regarded as it's cause.

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Relinquish said:

Thanks for your engaging reply, Strange. ☺Firstly, no, I don't believe that evidence IS needed to support my claims

The same  unscientific nonsense also aligns with the writers of fairy tales.

[Relinquish]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

The same  unscientific nonsense also aligns with the writers of fairy tales.

Evidently the universe has apparently discernable features. What sort of features would a shapeless universe have?

 

What would an unconstrained shape look like?

Edited May 27, 2018 by Relinquish

[koti]

25 minutes ago, Relinquish said:

Evidently the universe has apparently discernable features. What sort of features would a shapeless universe have?

 

What would an unconstrained shape look like?

Shape is the external boundary/surface of an object. Considering that the universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating, its shape is never constant. We can only consider discussing its shape from the inside of the universe because there are no refference points outside. From the inside the universe has a shape which is constantly changing. 

And evidently you are not providing any evidence for your assertions. It doesn’t really matter if you think that evidence is not required, adsertions need to be backed up here.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Relinquish said:

Firstly, no, I don't believe that evidence IS needed to support my claims that there can be no such thing as either a shapeless universe or an unconstrained shape. These are both self evident facts that are ultimately SO obvious that they can very easily be overlooked, so I'm just pointing them out.

It is not even obvious the universe has a shape. What shape do you think the universe has, and what is you evidence for that? What if the universe is infinite, how do you define "shape" in that case?

Quote

If the existence of a shape is absolutely dependent upon it's constraint, then it's constraint can also be regarded as it's cause.

What do you think those constraints are?

I assume they would be things like the effects of gravity, the average density of matter, etc.

[studiot]

I am concerned that much of what you have written is not what you actually mean.

 

I suggest you take a deep breath and review your thoughts carefully.

Then recast

A) self defeating statements

such as  " a state of constant change", which is insufficiently specified

B) self contradictory statements such as

 "If the radiance could have another shape...."  which directly contrdicts "Radiant shapelessness".

C) Statements where you have just picked the wrong word or phrase.

For example do you mean hypnosis or do you mean something like that which occurs in a snow or fog whiteout?

 

Then what you are trying to say might be more coherent and thereby more easily understood.

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Relinquish said:

Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence

A supernova a few billion light years away will have insignificant effects on the tree. A supernova 50 billion light years away can have absolutely no effect on the tree. So not the "entirety" of the universe.

3 hours ago, Relinquish said:

If the 'ceaseless change' that is this Radiance had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility.

Therefore, this 'ceaseless change' MUST be eternally cyclic.

Another unsupported assertion.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Strange

[Relinquish]

13 hours ago, koti said:

Shape is the external boundary/surface of an object. Considering that the universe is expanding and that expansion is accelerating, its shape is never constant. We can only consider discussing its shape from the inside of the universe because there are no refference points outside. From the inside the universe has a shape which is constantly changing. 

Absolutely right, and that means that in any given moment, the universe does indeed have a shape, or at least is not shapeless. It's overall shape is unknowable, but that is irrelevant to my position that it must have a constraining cause.

13 hours ago, Strange said:

It is not even obvious the universe has a shape. What shape do you think the universe has, and what is you evidence for that? What if the universe is infinite, how do you define "shape" in that case?

What do you think those constraints are?

I assume they would be things like the effects of gravity, the average density of matter, etc.

Every single surface (be it perceivable or imperceivable) is part of the overall shape of the universe. In a shapeless universe, no surfaces would exist.

 

The fact that the universe has a shape indicates that it can not be infinite. What we call 'space', on the other hand, is absolutely shapeless and unconstrained, and is therefore infinite and eternal. It's causeless, radiant presence is the cause of the universe and the only constraint upon it's overall shape.

 

The reason why this is is absolutely unknowable.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Relinquish

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Relinquish said:

Absolutely right, and that means that in any given moment, the universe does indeed have a shape, or at least is not shapeless. It's overall shape is unknowable, but that is irrelevant to my position that it must have a constraining cause.

Then why bring shape into the discussion? 

1 hour ago, Relinquish said:

Every single surface (be it perceivable or imperceivable) is part of the overall shape of the universe. In a shapeless universe, no surfaces would exist.

Define what you mean by surfaces, surfaces are part of objects, the universe contains objects... I'm just not sure what you are asserting...

1 hour ago, Relinquish said:

 

The fact that the universe has a shape indicates that it can not be infinite. What we call 'space', on the other hand, is absolutely shapeless and unconstrained, and is therefore infinite and eternal. It's causeless, radiant presence is the cause of the universe and the only constraint upon it's overall shape.

The universe can be both infinite and shapeless in fact I think you need to show some evidence for your assertions, in fact if you would read the rules of the forum you will see you do indeed need to show evidence for your assertions... 

1 hour ago, Relinquish said:

 

The reason why this is is absolutely unknowable.

Quote

Firstly, no, I don't believe that evidence IS needed to support my claims that there can be no such thing as either a shapeless universe or an unconstrained shape. These are both self evident facts that are ultimately SO obvious that they can very easily be overlooked, so I'm just pointing them out.

These "facts" are not self evident to me so you need to show me some evidence... 

[koti]

1 hour ago, Relinquish said:

...What we call 'space', on the other hand, is absolutely shapeless and unconstrained, and is therefore infinite and eternal. It's causeless, radiant presence is the cause of the universe and the only constraint upon it's overall shape.

 

The reason why this is is absolutely unknowable.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Space is volume, its not a physical thing just like a centimeter or a yard is not a physical thing. To state that space is causeless or eternal or radiant or unknowable is just complete nonsense.

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Space is volume, its not a physical thing just like a centimeter or a yard is not a physical thing. To state that space is causeless or eternal or radiant or unknowable is just complete nonsense.

Word... 

[Relinquish]

14 hours ago, Strange said:

A supernova a few billion light years away will have insignificant effects on the tree. A supernova 50 billion light years away can have absolutely no effect on the tree. So not the "entirety" of the universe.

Another unsupported assertion.

If one wanted to tell the WHOLE story of any particular 'thing' or 'event' in the universe, one would have to tell the entire story of the universe. Fundamentally, all things and events have the same story. In other words, the only event that is ACTUALLY happening is the universe, as one seamless whole.

Neither the tree, nor either of your two supernovae (or any other independently existing thing or event) actually exist in any non-conceptual way.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Relinquish

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, Relinquish said:

Firstly, no, I don't believe that evidence IS needed to support my claims

!

Moderator Note

This is science discussion, so yes, you do need evidence when making claims against what we observe in nature. Support your arguments or you're just preaching, which is against the rules.

 

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Relinquish said:

In a shapeless universe, no surfaces would exist.

Another unsupported assertion.

9 hours ago, Relinquish said:

The fact that the universe has a shape indicates that it can not be infinite.

How do you know the universe has a shape? What is you evidence for this?

And how do you know the universe is not infinite? What is you evidence for this?

9 hours ago, Relinquish said:

It's causeless, radiant presence is the cause of the universe and the only constraint upon it's overall shape.

And another baseless assertion.

 

You have posted this in the Philosophy section of a Science forum. The first of those requires you to use some logical arguments (not just assert what you believe) the second requires you to support your claims with evidence. So, far 0/2.

 

6 hours ago, Relinquish said:

If one wanted to tell the WHOLE story of any particular 'thing' or 'event' in the universe, one would have to tell the entire story of the universe.

Another assertion. WHY would you have to do this when there are parts of the universe that are causally disconnected from your tree (or 'tree').

6 hours ago, Relinquish said:

Neither the tree, nor either of your two supernovae (or any other independently existing thing or event) actually exist in any non-conceptual way.

So if you don't exist, why are you making these fatuous claims?

[Scott of the Antares]

So does the universe have a shape or not? Is the Cosmic microwave background image just a fanciful trick?

Im just a layperson but I would say if it had a shape, it was less likely to be infinite because a shape can be fully described (especially a regular shape).

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Scott of the Antares

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Im just a layperson but I would say if it had a shape, it was less likely to be infinite because a shape can be fully described (especially a regular shape).

Part of the problem is what meant by the word "shape".

In current cosmological models, the universe has no boundary. How does that relate to the concept of "shape"?

Also, the measured geometrical flatness of the universe could suggest that it is infinite in extent. On the other hand, it could mean that the universe has a more complex topology than we expect. For example, a toroid has a finite surface area (with no boundary) but is geometrically flat. I don't know how that relates to the word "shape" as used by the OP, either.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:

So does the universe have a shape or not? Is the Cosmic microwave background image just a fanciful trick?

Yes several members  (including me) have now asked that question, since the OP has said both yes and no.

So can we have an answer please, OP?

1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Im just a layperson but I would say if it had a shape, it was less likely to be infinite because a shape can be fully described (especially a regular shape).

I'd say that straight lines parabolas, hyperbolas and their surface equavalents etc go on to infinity, yet we can fully describe their shape everywhere.

However this shape is even more bizarre because it has infinite area enclosing a finite volume.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_Horn

Edited May 28, 2018 by studiot

[YaDinghus]

 

On 5/27/2018 at 9:27 AM, Relinquish said:

Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between 'the tree' and 'not the tree'. As such, neither 'the tree' nor 'not the tree' exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL 'particular processes', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You').

I thought I recognized some hints at a causal determinism in whateverthatis, but that could just be my pattern recognizer going haywire with all the gibberish. 

I've been accused of using fancy words to confuse people and sound smarter than I am sometines, but I've got to hand the cake to you on this one

[Scott of the Antares]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Part of the problem is what meant by the word "shape".

In current cosmological models, the universe has no boundary. How does that relate to the concept of "shape"?

The torus is a great example; I can see if we imagine that the entirety of our universe as a ‘2D’ surface mapped into the inside form of a ‘3D’ torus  then we have no start or end to our ‘space’;  it just loops endlessly. A bit like walking over the surface of a sphere, we can walk infinitely, never coming to a boundary. I imagine it would be quite hard for us to discover a higher dimensional geometry that underpins our space-time, if that turns out to be the case.

[Strange]

Just now, Scott of the Antares said:

The torus is a great example; I can see if we imagine that the entirety of our universe as a ‘2D’ surface mapped into the inside form of a ‘3D’ torus  then we have no start or end to our ‘space’;  it just loops endlessly. A bit like walking over the surface of a sphere, we can walk infinitely, never coming to a boundary. I imagine it would be quite hard for us to discover a higher dimensional geometry that underpins our space-time, if that turns out to be the case.

The thing about GR is that there is no need for a higher dimensional space to embed the geometry/topology of the universe in. This is because the curvature of space-time is intrinsic. I'm not going to attempt to explain this, and I don't know a good way of visualising it!

[Scott of the Antares]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I'd say that straight lines parabolas, hyperbolas and their surface equavalents etc go on to infinity, yet we can fully describe their shape everywhere.

Please forgive my ignorance; are these 2D shapes?

1 minute ago, Strange said:

The thing about GR is that there is no need for a higher dimensional space to embed the geometry/topology of the universe in. This is because the curvature of space-time is intrinsic. I'm not going to attempt to explain this, and I don't know a good way of visualising it!

Ok so no need to invoke more complexities to explain our universe, that is always a good thing!

[studiot]

27 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

but I've got to hand the cake to you on this one

I'd like to complain, That cake should have come my way.

 

5 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Please forgive my ignorance; are these 2D shapes?

Straight lines, parabolas etc are obviously well lines (1D shapes).

But a straight line can 'sweep out' a plane surface (2D) by moving it parallel to itself
And a parabola etc can make a tent shape by sweeping it similarly.

I thought I was making it easier, sorry.

Did you look at Gabriel's Horn?

Edited May 28, 2018 by studiot

[Scott of the Antares]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I'd say that straight lines parabolas, hyperbolas and their surface equavalents etc go on to infinity, yet we can fully describe their shape everywhere.

If you could bear with me whilst I catch up:)! So we can describe these shapes but can we actually make one? I know that sounds silly but if we can push a straight line parallel to itself infinitely, what context are we using to connect this to the shape of the universe, or is it a purely mathematical model?

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

Did you look at Gabriel's Horn?

This is interesting:) Is it possible to make Gabriel’s Horn as a real 3D object?

I’m trying to understand the relationship between these concepts of 1D/2D and there bearing on the shape (or lack of shape) of the universe. It might be unknowable and doomed to failure from a human perspective, but it is a fascinating subject that I am sure we have all wondered about since we were children. Some of us never stopped wondering! Sorry to slightly derail the thread.