Entangled Minds

[Grey Cloud]

Well said Mague. It pretty much sums up my own understanding of things though I can never make up my mind between 1D or 0D (zero). Soul (Atman) or Universal Mind - same difference.

0D is actually not the value 'zero'. It is the value 'one'. Much better starting point IMHO too. We wouldn't have much of a universe if the starting point would be zero.

Hi Steven,
From Tao, One arises.
From One, two.
From two, three.
Three becomes the ten thousand things.

The ten thousand things carry yin on their backs
and hold yang in their arms.
Existence depends on the two.
[I Ching 42. Bart Marshall trans].

Thirty spokes of the wheel converge
to define a hole.
Clay is molded into pots
to shape emptiness.
Walls are hammered into rooms
to enclosed space.
Windows are cut into walls
to frame absence.

Though things may have value,
without no-thing they are useless.
[I Ching 11. Bart Marshall trans]

[Riposte]

Well said Mague. It pretty much sums up my own understanding of things though I can never make up my mind between 1D or 0D (zero). Soul (Atman) or Universal Mind - same difference.

0D is actually not the value 'zero'. It is the value 'one'. Much better starting point IMHO too. We would'nt have much of a universe if the starting point would be zero.

The starting point of the universe actually is zero. A complete and total void of absolute nothingness; the ground of being. It is awareness, and from that springs forth all of creation and the universe.

But calling it a starting point is a misnomer, because there is no beginning and no end.

[StevenO]

Well said Mague. It pretty much sums up my own understanding of things though I can never make up my mind between 1D or 0D (zero). Soul (Atman) or Universal Mind - same difference.

0D is actually not the value 'zero'. It is the value 'one'. Much better starting point IMHO too. We would'nt have much of a universe if the starting point would be zero.

The starting point of the universe actually is zero. A complete and total void of absolute nothingness; the ground of being. It is awareness, and from that springs forth all of creation and the universe.

But calling it a starting point is a misnomer, because there is no beginning and no end.

Nah... For reasons of point symmetry, because any_X^0 = 1, e^pi = 1 and because it cannot come from nothing, it cannot be any other way than that the universe starts at 'one'. Only when it deviates from 'one' it becomes something physical.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,
Not 'nothing' but 'nothingness' (or 'no-thing'). One is the active principle or movement. You need three to get something physical.

Rig Veda Bk X, HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Not a great translation but it will serve.

There is only Mind. The 'physical' Universe is merely thought.
'You are just the thought of a thought' - U.G. Krishnamurti.

[StevenO]

Hi Steven,
Not 'nothing' but 'nothingness' (or 'no-thing'). One is the active principle or movement. You need three to get something physical.
<snip>
There is only Mind. The 'physical' Universe is merely thought.
'You are just the thought of a thought' - U.G. Krishnamurti.

Then we agree. I mean 'one' as in unit movement (where lightspeed orginates from). From there you can only deviate by changing with 'conservation' around the units, so a deviating motion conserves 'oneness' with complementary motion. From one you would step up to three (if 1/1 = unit motion then 2/1 and 1/2 are the physical deviation (which preserves to 3/3 units)). Pull a dyad out of a monad and you also get the triad.

[Riposte]

Nah... For reasons of point symmetry, because any_X^0 = 1, e^pi = 1 and because it cannot come from nothing, it cannot be any other way than that the universe starts at 'one'. Only when it deviates from 'one' it becomes something physical.

Yeah, it's a paradox. But it's the truth of our existence. The ground of all being is conscious awareness that is infinite and is literally nothing; a no-thing with no opposite.

This "zero" nothingness can not be comprehended by the mind, nor expressed in terms of language, both of which are limited in terms of duality. It is a nondual no-thing conscious awareness. "It" simply is. This "it" which is no "it" can only be experienced.

Sorry to sound so ridiculous, but it's the only way to describe it.

[StevenO]

Nah... For reasons of point symmetry, because any_X^0 = 1, e^pi = 1 and because it cannot come from nothing, it cannot be any other way than that the universe starts at 'one'. Only when it deviates from 'one' it becomes something physical.

Yeah, it's a paradox. But it's the truth of our existence. The ground of all being is conscious awareness that is infinite and is literally nothing; a no-thing with no opposite.

This "zero" nothingness can not be comprehended by the mind, nor expressed in terms of language, both of which are limited in terms of duality. It is a nondual no-thing conscious awareness. "It" simply is. This "it" which is no "it" can only be experienced.

Sorry to sound so ridiculous, but it's the only way to describe it.

Indeed, 'truth' and 'existence' are all related to the number 'one', not to the number 'zero'. Just like a no-thing with no opposite. The opposite of 'one' is 'one'. From then on only dualities are created, like 'infinity' and 'zero'.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,
I think you are getting One and One mixed up. In Pythagorean terms One is Unity. It is the equivalence of Brahman or Atman of Hinduism, or the No-Thing of the I Ching (the circle enclosing the yin and yang). Hermeticists call this The All (All is in The All; The All is in all).
'Zero' would be Saraswati and The One would be Brahma. Or in Daoist terminology Dao (yin) and The One (yang). Or Kaos (or Aether) and Phanes with the Greeks. These would be Two and Three in Pythagorean terms. The potential and the actual (which is the realisation of potential).
The only duality is at the moment of scission when One becomes Two (Pythagoras would spit on the floor at this point). Three restores harmony. The physical Universe operates according to the Law of Three. Two opposite always require a third element (a mean as the Greeks called it). Two opposites just cancel out each other - there is no motion or movement and no motion or movement means no physical Universe.
It's all a yin-yang thang.

[StevenO]

Hi Steven,
I think you are getting One and One mixed up.
<snip>
Two opposites just cancel out each other - there is no motion or movement and no motion or movement means no physical Universe.
It's all a yin-yang thang.

I was really talking in technical terms here. An all-symmetrical universe would be in a state of 'unity' or 'one'. It does'nt contain any identifiable physical properties. Even space or time do not 'exist'. Yet, it needs to have a defining property for its own 'existence' and that can best be expressed as 'unit change'. That state of 'unity' in our observable universe is identified as lightspeed. Our universe is build out of lightspeed units. Disturbances of that symmetrical state create the physical properties of space and time, from which all other physical properties and objects can be derived.
I that sense I also agree with you that no motion means no universe. In fact, I would argue the physical content of the universe arises out of motion.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,
I agree that that we more or less agree. I guess I'm just being picky . The main difference would seem to be that to me the Universe only exists in the Mind of Brahman (or whatever label one wishes to apply). Alao you appear to be using light as shorthand for visible light, which is itself shorthand for light visible to humans. To me light is a concept and synonymous with movement (frequency, vibration, etc). To me, physical things such as planets or trees are merely the aether vibrating at a certain frequency or whatever (like a riff or chord in music). Aether itself only exists in the Mind of Brahman.

Things like the speed of light and other scientific standards, so far as they are deemed constants etc, are only so partly because of our limitations and partly because of where the Universe is up to at this point. When the Universe changes, or changes us, it will if necessary change the so-called Laws of Physics and anything else. In any case the speed of light is far too slow to be of any use to the Universe.
The All is Mind; the Universe is mental - the Kybalion (An Hermetic text).
I am mental; I feel right at home in the Universe - Grey Cloud.

[StefanR]

Hi Steven,
I think you are getting One and One mixed up. In Pythagorean terms One is Unity. It is the equivalence of Brahman or Atman of Hinduism, or the No-Thing of the I Ching (the circle enclosing the yin and yang). Hermeticists call this The All (All is in The All; The All is in all).
'Zero' would be Saraswati and The One would be Brahma. Or in Daoist terminology Dao (yin) and The One (yang). Or Kaos (or Aether) and Phanes with the Greeks. These would be Two and Three in Pythagorean terms. The potential and the actual (which is the realisation of potential).
The only duality is at the moment of scission when One becomes Two (Pythagoras would spit on the floor at this point). Three restores harmony. The physical Universe operates according to the Law of Three. Two opposite always require a third element (a mean as the Greeks called it). Two opposites just cancel out each other - there is no motion or movement and no motion or movement means no physical Universe.
It's all a yin-yang thang.

Just rambling here but

There are many ones
some ones are more one than other ones
some ones are the same as one
some ones are equal to one
and some ones are like one
all ones in one and one in all ones
a particular one and an infinite one
a one that is one itself
and perhaps the one that cannot be called one

Just a question , wasn't the zero a arithmatical invention, as sort of an accountancy trick?

I think Pythagoras would also be more content if you would say that the one produces the two, for if the one becomes two the one would not be one any more but two, as in two is the product of one and one, for two has oneness but cannot be the same etc etc etc or better to say the famous One-Many problem
Just as opposites are not opposites if they cancel each other as then they would not be opposite but one, so its maybe more accurate to speek of balance than cancellation, as they attract in there likeness and repel in their unlikeness, they have sameness and difference, but as the inside and outside of a sphere meet closely in balance, stand in opposition but do not cancel, for if inside and outside are gone, again there is only oneness
Actual division is more like a biological cell which can only have a division within itself and produce by that two cells , just like the creative gods create within themselves, or as a sphere is partitioned in halves,
It seems to be the production of that two that produces the three, for as the two halves of the sphere each wish to be as much one as possible, they desire to contact the outside as much as possible like the whole sphere did and by that strife the two divisions move about each other and such is the production of movement of the three, a spiraling vortex seeking balance between inner and outer
By that movement itself is above the physical universe but it is a certain cause thereof, the hellenic image of the procession of the gods, is a telling one, and as with the Dao where there is procession there is reversion, on all levels of being
etc etc etc

words words words of course

[Grey Cloud]

Just to head-off any possible confusion, Stefan is talking monads not gonads.

[StevenO]

The monad says it all...

The center has no size, no direction, just location.
The circle has size, but no direction.
Any line through the center has direction but no size.
No matter the size, the circle is always directed away from any line through the center.
The lines represent space. The circle represents time. The center is the observer.
Time scales space for the observer and space directs time to the observer.

Now you could understand why the speed of light is constant for any observer. We are not
measuring the speed of a photon, but the speed of spacetime. It is the simpler explanation.
The photon is a simple vibration of spacetime and does not move on its own. Only matter
has the ability to move independently. Gravity or mass is a directionless contracting
movement of matter.

[seasmith]

~
I IS the Monad.
Time and Space are faculties of (my) Mind.

Only "centers" ex-ist.

I an not the only "observer",
nor the sole "center".

~s~

[Grey Cloud]

You are the thought of a thought. When you 'die' you go back to being a thought. When you are done with metempsychosis you go back to being the thinker. That's my thoughts on it, I think.