Could god be dimensionless point of consciousness AND-----------

Sergeant Bilko · November 19, 2012

Maybe its time for the Mods to "have a word" The rules of the site, as far as I understand, at least require posters to engage in a reasonable level of debate.

**imatfaal** · November 19, 2012

!

Moderator Note

Chandragupta and others

This is a discussion forum - please either enter into the debate or watch from the sidelines; one word responses may initially appear pithy and succinct, but are in effect little better than trolling.

chandragupta · November 19, 2012

I entirely agree with the moderator. I wish I could be allowed to put the ideas I have re. god in rational way without being insulted & called names. If you don't agree with me on this point then please say so & I shall say good bye to all of you & as a matter of decency I then Would also say ' It was nice meeting all of you through this ciber space'.

iNow · November 19, 2012

I entirely agree with the moderator. I wish I could be allowed to put the ideas I have re. god in rational way without being insulted & called names.

I understand your desire not to be insulted. That is perfectly reasonable and encourages me to believe that potentially you are something more than a random bot (which is certainly possible given the exchanges here).

I must ask you, however... Do you understand how the rest of us have grown frustrated by the way you've failed to address any of the topic specific criticisms and concerns addressed to you about your posts? Do you feel your posts thus far have met and surpassed the criteria for being described as "rational?"

Many specific points of feedback were provided to you on why your idea is unlikely to have merit and where it is hopelessly unclear. Your responses, however, have amounted to little more than, "Nuh uh. I don't like believing I came from matter." Then, when asked to define consciousness in a meaningful way, again your replies consisted of little more than commands that the rest of us "think about the 'I' at our center." In other words, your reply was peripheral to the question put to you.

I promise you, rational discussion here would be welcomed by us all. We're still waiting for you to offer some. Will you kindly please begin to do so now?

PeterJ · November 21, 2012

'Could god be dimensionless point of consciousness & could cosmic space be the mind of god' ?:- this was the question raised.Not a claim made.

Quite.

Plotinus describes reality as a hypersphere. The spacetime world would be on surface while God would be a point at the focus, immediately connected and encompassing all points on the surface. Here 'God', (if we must use this word), would not be a dimensionless point, which is an incoherent idea, but sizeless, or umanifest. Because all psychophysical phenomena would be epiphenomenal they would not really exist. That is, they cannot be said to not-exist, but they would not exist as we usually think they do. They would be conceptual imputations, and the whole show might be called a dream or illusion. But the illusion would only work while we keep forgetting who we are. Of course, any visual metaphor will be misleading, but it's a way to think about it.

To falsify this view would require that we prove that anything truly exists. For the difficulty of doing this check out the 'problem of attributes'. If we could prove such a thing then the film 'Matrix' would not have been possible.

Just out of interest, this view of spacetime phenomena solves Zeno's paradoxes, which form a reductio argument against the idea that anything truly exists that can change or move. Plotinus' 'God' would be unchanging for Zeno and his master Parmenides. Philosophers are well aware that motion and change are paradoxical if we assume that phenomena have an essence or core substance.

If we take the mentions of God out of this, the idea is one that seems to fit perfectly with physics.

But the 'point' would not be consiousness. Consciousness, but most definitions, requires a subject and an object, and cannot be a point. Also, consciousness requires time for its operations. This would be more like what the shaman of the pueblo indians call 'Awakened Awareness', or 'Nirvana', 'Tao', etc.

Don't worry about any flack, Chandragupta. Some people cannot see past the naive religion of their upbringing and will assume that this is what you are proposing. I have found it impossible to explore the relationship between religion and physics here. No sensible discussion seems possible in the face of so much wilful misunderstanding and bad feeling.

**imatfaal** · November 21, 2012

Peter - Where does Plotinus liken reality to a hypersphere - sounds fascinating but I don't really recognize it

PeterJ · November 21, 2012

Oh drat. Now I'll have to go find the reference. Quite right to call me out, but it'll take me a little while to find the passage. I'll be back...

PeterJ · November 21, 2012

I'm glad you sent me back to the Enneads of Plotinus, Imatfaal, I'd forgotten how amazing they are.

It might take me a long time time to find the passage I had in mind but I immediately came across the same idea.

In the Fourth Tractate - 'On the Integral Ominiprescence of the Authentic Existence' - Plotinus explains the omnipresence of the Soul. 'Soul' here means something like 'world-soul' or 'Absolute'. For Plotinus reality would be a unity. As such it would be both One and Many. This is not easy to explain even badly, and impossible to conceive. We cannot speak of a phenomenon that is beyond the categories with which we think.

"We are agreed that diversity within the Authentic depends not upon spatial separation but sheerly upon differentiation; all Beings, despite this plurality, is a unity still. ...Souls too? Souls too."

Schroedinger writes something simliar. This would be the standard model in mysticism. For an analogy Plotinus describes a sphere of light.

"[Or] imagine a small luminous mass serving as centre to a transparent sphere, so that the light from within shows upon the entire outer surface, otherwise unlit: we surely agree that the inner core of light, intact and immobile, reaches over the entire outer extension; the single light of that small centre illuminates the whole field. The diffused light is not due to any bodily magnitude of that central point which illuminates not as a body but as a body lit, that is by another kind of power than corporeal quality; let us then abstract the corporeal mass, retaining the light as power; we can no longer speak of the light in any particular spot; it is equally diffused within and throughout the entire sphere."

He goes on to describe how the Beings in this sphere can nevertheless be a single unified phenomenon.

"The light of our world can be allocated because it springs from a corporeal mass of known position, but conceive an immaterial entity, independent of body as being of earlier nature than all body, a nature firmly self-based or, better, without need of base; such a principle, incorporeal, autonomous, having no source for its rising, coming from no place, attached to no material mass, this cannot be alloted part here and part there: that would be to give it both a previous position and a present attachment. ... anything participating in such a principle can participate only as entirety with entirety; the principle is unaffected, undivided'.

In other words, the universe can be thought of as being both extended and unextended. The spacetime world would be an extended sphere of light while the sphere of light would have no parts and would therefore be unextended. This visual analogy is paradoxical, misleading and inadequate, as Plotinus takes care to note, but it is useful. The truth would be that the Authentic is sizeless, incorporeal, unmanifest. Distance would be not only arbitrary but illusionary, as at least one noted physicist claims, and this is how the Authentic may be or may be conceived as everywhere at once without being extended.

It is a controversial idea, I know, but I'm not sure why this cannot be a legitimate interpretation of quantum mechanics. It would make the OP's description of the world almost correct. And why not? C.S. Pearce, widely considered the USA's greatest ever philosopher, proposes the same view, and sometimes in words so alike with those of Plotinus that it might as well be plagiarism. Schroedinger likewise, who introduces the new-fangled idea of an ideal gas as a model or mechanism for the reconciliation of the One and the Many.

Plotinus expresses the orthodox view in mysticism but pushes his reasoning a lot further than most of its exponents. Most just say that it is not worth bothering trying to imagine the topology of the universe. It has to be realised. This is about enlightenment, of course, for 'anything participating in such a principle can participate only as entirety with entirety'.

Incidentally, this would be an explanation for why what the Buddhists call 'Enlightenment', the participation of 'entirety with entirety' or the realisation of entirety, is described as a cosmic event.

Edited November 21, 2012 by PeterJ

immortal · November 22, 2012

God is anthropomorphic, he is personal and he exists behind the Intellect and what exists behind him is the Soul.

Hyper-cosmic Sun-god

In addition, as has often been noted, there seems to have been a connection in Plato's imagination between his allegory in Book VII of the Republic of the ascent of the cave dweller to the sunlit world outside the cave and his myth in the Phaedrus of the ascent of the soul to the realm outside of the cosmos where "True Being" dwells. The account in the Phaedrus reads:

For the souls that are called immortal, so soon as they are at the summit [of the heavens], come forth and stand upon the back of the world: and straightway the revolving heaven carries them round, and they look upon the regions without. Of that place beyond the heavens none of our earthly poets has yet sung, and none shall sing worthily. But this is the manner of it, for assuredly we must be bold to speak what is true, above all when our discourse is upon truth. It is there that true being dwells, without colour or shape, that cannot be touched; reason alone, the soul's pilot, can behold it, and all true knowledge is knowledge thereof.

As R. Hackforth says,

No earlier myth has told of a
hyperouranios topos
[place beyond the heavens], but this is not the first occasion on which true Being, the
ousia ontos ousa
, has been given a local habitation. In the passage of
Rep.
VI which introduces the famous comparison of the Form of the Good to the sun we have a
noetos topos
contrasted with a
horatos
(508C): but a spatial metaphor is hardly felt there.... A truer approximation to the
hyperouranios topos
occurs in the simile of the cave in Rep. VII, where we are plainly told that the prisoners' ascent into the light of day symbolises
ten eis ton noeton tes psyches anodon
(517B); in fact, the
noetos topos
of the first simile has in the second developed into a real spatial symbol. [3]

Paul Friedländer agrees with Hackforth completely in seeing a connection in Plato's mind between the ascent from the cave in the Republic and the ascent to the "hypercosmic place" in the Phaedrus:

The movement "upward"... had found its fullest expression in the allegory of the cave in the
Republic
. [Now in the
Phaedrus
]... the dimension of the "above" is stated according to the new cosmic co-ordinates. For the "intelligible place" (
topos noetos
) in the Republic (509D, 517B) now becomes "the place beyond the heavens" (
topos hyperouranios
)...

The trajectory we have been tracing from Plato through Middle Platonism to the Chaldaean Oracles continues beyond the time of the Chaldaean Oracles into early Neoplatonism, for we find the concept of the existence of two suns clearly spelled out in the writings of Plotinus, in a context that makes it clear that for Plotinus one of these suns was "hypercosmic." In chapter 2, paragraph 11 of his fourth Ennead, Plotinus speaks of two suns, one being the normal visible sun and the other being an "intelligible sun." According to Plotinus,

...that sun in the divine realm is Intellect-- let this serve as an example for our discourse-- and next after it is soul, dependent upon it and abiding while Intellect abides. This soul gives the edge of itself which borders on this [visible] sun to this sun, and makes a connection of it to the divine realm through the medium of itself, and acts as an interpreter of what comes from this sun to the intelligible sun and from the intelligible sun to this sun... [8]

What is especially interesting for us is that in the same third chapter of the fourth Ennead, a mere six paragraphs after the passage just quoted, Plotinus explicitly locates the intelligible realm-- which he has just told us is the location of a second sun-- in the space beyond the heavens. The passage reads:

One could deduce from considerations like the following that the souls when they leave the intelligible first enter the space of heaven. For if heaven is the better part of the region perceived by the senses, it borders on the last and lowest parts of the intelligible. [9]

As A.H. Armstong says of this passage, "There is here a certain 'creeping spatiality'... [Plotinus'] language is influenced, perhaps not only by the 'cosmic religiosity' of his time, but by his favorite myth in Plato'sPhaedrus (246D6-247E6)."[10] In any event, we here find Plotinus in the third chapter of the fourth Ennead first positing the existence of an "intelligible sun" besides the normal visible sun, and then locating the intelligible realm spatially in the region beyond the outermost boundary of the heavens.

PeterJ · November 22, 2012

..."As A.H. Armstong says of this passage, "There is here a certain 'creeping spatiality'... [Plotinus'] language is influenced, perhaps not only by the 'cosmic religiosity' of his time, but by his favorite myth in Plato'sPhaedrus (246D6-247E6)."[10] In any event, we here find Plotinus in the third chapter of the fourth Ennead first positing the existence of an "intelligible sun" besides the normal visible sun, and then locating the intelligible realm spatially in the region beyond the outermost boundary of the heavens."

Thanks Immortal. This is the extra dimension Plotinus uses for his hypersphere. Nothing to do with his favourite myth though. Plotinus knew better than to write speculative treatises on his favourite myths. He speaks from self-knowledge (or, some would say, from self-delusion). There is no 'creeping spatiality', there is just someone trying to explain something by the use of spatial analogies. The creeping spatiality is in the mind of the reader. How one gets from an analogy about sunlight to the idea of a Sun-God I have no idea. Very weird.

The first sentence of your post is stated as a fact. Do you not think it should start 'In my opinion'?

Edited November 22, 2012 by PeterJ

chandragupta · November 22, 2012

1353499716[/url]' post='714454']
Quite.

Plotinus describes reality as a hypersphere. The spacetime world would be on surface while God would be a point at the focus, immediately connected and encompassing all points on the surface. Here 'God', (if we must use this word), would not be a dimensionless point, which is an incoherent idea, but sizeless, or umanifest. Because all psychophysical phenomena would be epiphenomenal they would not really exist. That is, they cannot be said to not-exist, but they would not exist as we usually think they do. They would be conceptual imputations, and the whole show might be called a dream or illusion. But the illusion would only work while we keep forgetting who we are. Of course, any visual metaphor will be misleading, but it's a way to think about it.

To falsify this view would require that we prove that anything truly exists. For the difficulty of doing this check out the 'problem of attributes'. If we could prove such a thing then the film 'Matrix' would not have been possible.

Just out of interest, this view of spacetime phenomena solves Zeno's paradoxes, which form a reductio argument against the idea that anything truly exists that can change or move. Plotinus' 'God' would be unchanging for Zeno and his master Parmenides. Philosophers are well aware that motion and change are paradoxical if we assume that phenomena have an essence or core substance.

If we take the mentions of God out of this, the idea is one that seems to fit perfectly with physics.

1353499716[/url]' post='714454'] Quite. Plotinus describes reality as a hypersphere. The spacetime world would be on surface while God would be a point at the focus, immediately connected and encompassing all points on the surface. Here 'God', (if we must use this word), would not be a dimensionless point, which is an incoherent idea, but sizeless, or umanifest. Because all psychophysical phenomena would be epiphenomenal they would not really exist. That is, they cannot be said to not-exist, but they would not exist as we usually think they do. They would be conceptual imputations, and the whole show might be called a dream or illusion. But the illusion would only work while we keep forgetting who we are. Of course, any visual metaphor will be misleading, but it's a way to think about it. To falsify this view would require that we prove that anything truly exists. For the difficulty of doing this check out the 'problem of attributes'. If we could prove such a thing then the film 'Matrix' would not have been possible. Just out of interest, this view of spacetime phenomena solves Zeno's paradoxes, which form a reductio argument against the idea that anything truly exists that can change or move. Plotinus' 'God' would be unchanging for Zeno and his master Parmenides. Philosophers are well aware that motion and change are paradoxical if we assume that phenomena have an essence or core substance. If we take the mentions of God out of this, the idea is one that seems to fit perfectly with physics. But the 'point' would not be consiousness. Consciousness, but most definitions, requires a subject and an object, and cannot be a point. Also, consciousness requires time for its operations. This would be more like what the shaman of the pueblo indians call 'Awakened Awareness', or 'Nirvana', 'Tao', etc. When one is coming out of general anesthesia into fully awakened state, there is a very short moment when one is only self aware I.e. subject only, without being aware of one's physical body or that of the world I.e. without being aware of any object. In other words at that momentary moment one is subject only I.e. a dimensionless point of consciousness. Don't worry about any flack, Chandragupta. Some people cannot see past the naive religion of their upbringing and will assume that this is what you are proposing. I have found it impossible to explore the relationship between religion and physics here. No sensible discussion seems possible in the face of so much wilful misunderstanding and bad feeling. 
 .

Don't worry about any flack, Chandragupta. Some people cannot see past the naive religion of their upbringing and will assume that this is what you are proposing. I have found it impossible to explore the relationship between religion and physics here. No sensible discussion seems possible in the face of so much wilful misunderstanding and bad feeling.

1353499716[/url]' post='714454']
Quite.

Plotinus describes reality as a hypersphere. The spacetime world would be on surface while God would be a point at the focus, immediately connected and encompassing all points on the surface. Here 'God', (if we must use this word), would not be a dimensionless point, which is an incoherent idea, but sizeless, or umanifest. Because all psychophysical phenomena would be epiphenomenal they would not really exist. That is, they cannot be said to not-exist, but they would not exist as we usually think they do. They would be conceptual imputations, and the whole show might be called a dream or illusion. But the illusion would only work while we keep forgetting who we are. Of course, any visual metaphor will be misleading, but it's a way to think about it.

To falsify this view would require that we prove that anything truly exists. For the difficulty of doing this check out the 'problem of attributes'. If we could prove such a thing then the film 'Matrix' would not have been possible.

Just out of interest, this view of spacetime phenomena solves Zeno's paradoxes, which form a reductio argument against the idea that anything truly exists that can change or move. Plotinus' 'God' would be unchanging for Zeno and his master Parmenides. Philosophers are well aware that motion and change are paradoxical if we assume that phenomena have an essence or core substance.

If we take the mentions of God out of this, the idea is one that seems to fit perfectly with physics.

But the 'point' would not be consiousness. Consciousness, but most definitions, requires a subject and an object, and cannot be a point. Also, consciousness requires time for its operations. This would be more like what the shaman of the pueblo indians call 'Awakened Awareness', or 'Nirvana', 'Tao', etc.

Don't worry about any flack, Chandragupta. Some people cannot see past the naive religion of their upbringing and will assume that this is what you are proposing. I have found it impossible to explore the relationship between religion and physics here. No sensible discussion seems possible in the face of so much wilful misunderstanding and bad feeling.

When one is coming out of general anesthesia into fully awakened state, there is a very short moment when one is only self aware I.e. subject only, without being aware of one's physical body or that of the world I.e. without being aware of any object. In other words, at that very momentary moment one is a pure subject only I.e. a dimensionless point & that too a dimensionless point of consciousness.

immortal · November 22, 2012

*null*

Edited November 22, 2012 by immortal

immortal · November 22, 2012

The first sentence of your post is stated as a fact. Do you not think it should start 'In my opinion'?

Why should I state thousands of years of our Acharyas teachings as my opinion? I go by what tradition says and not by what a 21st century double standard scholar says and anyone disagreeing with that first sentence is obviously deviating from facts and reality. God can be a sandwich or a dimensionless point of consciousness or any damn imaginary thing for others but there is no ambiguity or confusion as to what God is in the traditional view.

"Savithru deva is lord and master of Agnisoma mandala and He is in Samasthi Brahmanda¹. The same presiding deity(Savithrudeva) rules the microcosm Pindanda. Human beings who are not aware of this imagine that it is they and their own mind and intellect that get things to be done through their indriyas². How can subordinates³ be independent? Imagining that he is independent, the individual attributes his achievement to his own mind and intellect. This amounts to moha⁴ and aham-bhava^5.But those few who are capable of deep reflection realize that there should be one (a power) who inspires or activates the mind and intellect further reflection and contemplation leads such individuals to realize that the Inspirer or Activator is Savithrudeva. It is He and He alone who instill power into the intellect. It is the intellect, which is the center and source of all activity, physical, mental, etc."

- Devudu, Traditional Scholar

1. Brahmanda is called Macrocosm and Pindanda (the human body) is called the microcosm.

2. The ten sensory organs, five Jnana indriyas (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin) and five organs of action (hands, feet, tongue, arms and pudendum).

3. The mind, the intellect and the indriyas.

4. Attachment or the state of being enamored.

5. Ego-feeling leading to arrogance and conceit.

"...that sun in the divine realm is Intellect-- let this serve as an example for our discourse-- and next after it is soul, dependent upon it and abiding while Intellect abides. This soul gives the edge of itself which borders on this [visible] sun to this sun, and makes a connection of it to the divine realm through the medium of itself, and acts as an interpreter of what comes from this sun to the intelligible sun and from the intelligible sun to this sun..." [8]

- Plotinus

**imatfaal** · November 22, 2012

Peter - many thanks will digest at leisure. I have never really immersed in the Enneads - but will have to.

immortal - Peter is quite correct, in a discussion of the nature, definition, and concept of god to be so dogmatic and certain is overly preachy and dismissive of others views, beliefs, and arguments. We should be clear there is no single "traditional view" - to raise our own cultural beliefs over those of others is logically and intellectually bankrupt. The multiplicity of deities - even of types of entity considered godlike - increases my scepticism and leads to my conclusion that none of the competing myths have a basis in truth

immortal · November 22, 2012

Peter - many thanks will digest at leisure. I have never really immersed in the Enneads - but will have to.

immortal - Peter is quite correct, in a discussion of the nature, definition, and concept of god to be so dogmatic and certain is overly preachy and dismissive of others views, beliefs, and arguments. We should be clear there is no single "traditional view" - to raise our own cultural beliefs over those of others is logically and intellectually bankrupt. The multiplicity of deities - even of types of entity considered godlike - increases my scepticism and leads to my conclusion that none of the competing myths have a basis in truth

Would you state that the Sun is the center of our Solar system as an opinion and simultaneously encourage and allow the view that the Earth is at the center of our Solar System? No right. If it is downright insulting for others to accept the fact that the Sun is the center of our Solar system then its not my problem. We are living in the age of reason.

There is one way to eliminate competing myths, its called negative theology.

chandragupta · November 22, 2012

Peter j. You raised a very important issue:- I am now quoting you so as to enhance the dialogue further. You said " But the 'point' would not be consciousness. Consciousness, by most definitions, requires a subject & an object & cannot be a 'point'. Also, consciousness requires time for its operations".------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My answer is as follows :- When one is coming out of general anesthesia into fully awakened state, there is a very short moment when one is only self aware I.e. a pure subject only, without being aware of one's physical body or that of the world I.e. without being aware of any object. In other words, at that momentary moment one is a pure subject only I.e. a dimensionless conscious point & hence the concept that I propounded re. god i.e. dimensionless point of consciousness before god formed cosmic space time plus material universe.

PeterJ · November 22, 2012

Peter - many thanks will digest at leisure. I have never really immersed in the Enneads - but will have to.

You're very welcome. He's the only writer I've come across who tries to paint a picture of the inside-out nature of the mystical universe, and I think it's a useful thing to do even if the attempt is bound to fail. In the passages I quoted he is talking about 'nonduality'. This is the principle that I believe is the correct interpretation of QM. It is the only one that makes the slightest sense to me.

A multiplicity of deities would be sufficient to render religion absurd, never mind increasing your scepticism. Let us stick with Plotinus and speak of the 'Authentic', that which has an authentic existence. All else would partake in extension and substance and reduce to smoke and mirrors.

PeterJ · November 23, 2012

Peter j. You raised a very important issue:- I am now quoting you so as to enhance the dialogue further. You said " But the 'point' would not be consciousness. Consciousness, by most definitions, requires a subject & an object & cannot be a 'point'. Also, consciousness requires time for its operations".------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------My answer is as follows :- When one is coming out of general anesthesia into fully awakened state, there is a very short moment when one is only self aware I.e. a pure subject only, without being aware of one's physical body or that of the world I.e. without being aware of any object. In other words, at that momentary moment one is a pure subject only I.e. a dimensionless conscious point & hence the concept that I propounded re. god i.e. dimensionless point of consciousness before god formed cosmic space time plus material universe.

I see what you're saying, and I can see exactly how you arrive at a dimensionless point of consciousness. . But going on logic alone there seem to be some problems with this view. Maybe it's a matter of terminology.

A subject requires an object. A theory for which a subject is a primitive term is therefore nonreductive. So while I would not disagree that the kind of experience you speak of is possible, I would question whether it is correct to call it a subjective experience of the subject. If it is, then the subject has become the object and problems of self-reference arise. It is possible to go deeper than this.

A dimensionless point is an impossible object. A useful fiction for science and maths but no such thing is possible. Plotinus' view makes more sense. The Authentic would be sizeless, and while it may be thought of as infinitely small or infinitely vast it would be neither. These would be just the only two ways we can try to conceive of it. Back to the hypersphere...

Consciousness as a term is usually reserved for the subject-object duality. I.e 'intentional' consciousness. If there is no object present there can be no subject present. Maybe the experience you refer to is more like Schopenhauer's 'better consciousness', for which subject and object are transcended. Here 'better' clarifies that he is not speaking of intentional consciousness but something more like pure awareness. This is Kant's original phenomenon, which is neither subject not object and is entirely beyond the categories. For this I think 'awareness' may be a better term than 'consciousness', although no doubt this is also inadequate. Thus Buddhists may say that consciousness does not really exist, meaning that the subject-object duality is a broken-symmetry and not original.

I like your idea, but see it as the beginning of a more profound idea. You have arrived at a point, but a point requires a location in a spatial void. The next job would be to reduce or 'sublate' the point and the void to a unitary phenomenon. Otherwise we end up with Leibnitz's doctrine of monads, which is pretty terrifying and unsupported by experiment or logic.

Edited November 23, 2012 by PeterJ

chandragupta · November 23, 2012

1353673201[/url]' post='714763']

I like your idea, but see it as the beginning of a more profound idea. You have arrived at a point, but a point requires a location in a spatial void. The next job would be to reduce or 'sublate' the point and the void to a unitary phenomenon. Otherwise we end up with Leibnitz's doctrine of monads, which is pretty terrifying and unsupported by experiment or logic.

The word 'point' is an abstract idea which is not the point which one makes on a piece of paper to convey the mathematical fraction of a whole number I.e. 1.5 etc. It denotes the abstract concept that an entity has existence but has no dimension. Since this entity has no dimension, (but does have existence) it is conceived in an abstract manner that it can exist without the need for the cosmic space (which of course is impossible in the world we live in).

PeterJ · November 24, 2012

The word 'point' is an abstract idea which is not the point which one makes on a piece of paper to convey the mathematical fraction of a whole number I.e. 1.5 etc. It denotes the abstract concept that an entity has existence but has no dimension. Since this entity has no dimension, (but does have existence) it is conceived in an abstract manner that it can exist without the need for the cosmic space (which of course is impossible in the world we live in).

Yes. To the extent a point exists it requires a place to exist. If we say it is unmanifest then no void is required. It can. as you say, exist as an idea, albeit that it is a self-contradictory one, but not as a real thing. I think we agree.

chandragupta · November 24, 2012

1353717470[/url]' post='714851']
Yes. To the extent a point exists it requires a place to exist. If we say it is unmanifest then no void is required. It can. as you say, exist as an idea, albeit that it is a self-contradictory one, but not as a real thing. I think we agree.

When one is coming out of one's deep sleep state into fully awakened state there is this extremely short moment when one is only pure awareness without any kind of thought such as thought of one's material body or the of thought of space time universe. At this momentary moment each human being becomes pure dimensionless awareness.

PeterJ · November 24, 2012

Fair enough. Dimensionless awareness makes sense, as opposed to a 'dimensionless point'. There is same experience during an orgasm as well, so they say. For 24 hour a day awareness a lot of practice would be required.

chandragupta · November 24, 2012

1353757329[/url]' post='714889']
Fair enough. Dimensionless awareness makes sense, as opposed to a 'dimensionless point'. There is same experience during an orgasm as well, so they say. For 24 hour a day awareness a lot of practice would be required.

I agree. Constant & perpetual self awareness of this dimensionless state is available to those who seek.

PeterJ · November 24, 2012

Great. I thought we'd end up agreeing

It seems to me you are talking about nondualism.

chandragupta · November 24, 2012

1353760502[/url]' post='714896']
Great. I thought we'd end up agreeing

It seems to me you are talking about nondualism.

Yes. Nondualism or adwaita is the thing. Very nice to meet you. Quantum world & the world of nondualism can meet. The meeting ground could be (& here I emphasize 'could be':- I am not saying 'would be' ) the quantum idea of singularity.

Sign In

Could god be dimensionless point of consciousness AND-----------

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

iNow

chandragupta

chandragupta

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information