The empty box is full

[amorphos_ii]

The empty box is full

A guy on TV asked ‘why isn’t there just nothing and not something’; i.e. life the universe and everything? The answer he got was that, all we know is that there is something and not nothing. To wit I thought, hmm well that doesn’t really tell us the answer.

So I looked besides my TV and saw a little wooden box with thick sides and quite a small cavity. Then I thought to myself ‘I bet that box can tell us a better answer!’…

I picked up the box, opened it and thought to myself, oh it has nothing inside it, and in a manner of speaking the box said ‘hang on a minute, I think you will find that I am empty but there is not nothing here, as I am full of air’. In fact, no matter what you do, you cannot make it so that I am a box with nothing inside!

In answer, I figuratively took the box into deep space and said; there, now there is nothing inside. Yet the box stated that it still has something in it, for it has space and dimension. Then even if we continue emptying it, such that there are not even any particles nor virtual particles inside, there would still be space and dimension within ~ and space is something.

Thence I took the box outside the universe [or even prior to its beginning] and stated that; now there is no space, nor dimensions or anything, and thus, the box contains nothing. Ah, said the box, so now all the inner sides of me are touching and I am not an empty box, but still don’t have nothing in me for I am a block and thence I am full!

You cannot do that without forces nor dimensions, including time, such to compress me with.

Imagine now that the box is a large pot, above it I am holding a sack containing everything in it. So we tip the contents of everything into the pot, I then get a blender and blend until it is soup. I then take my cosmic blender, and then proceed to severe all the atomic bonds, then the quantum or whatever other bonds we can imagine. Now no particles are formed virtual or otherwise, and yet all energy remains, everything has gone in there, and the pot is empty. Ergo, you can have emptiness but you cannot hove nothing, because nothing is not a something et al.

This is where we and all things begin and end, all that exists is an empty box.


Oh and by the way said the box, ‘mind’ is also something which is essentially empty, and thus goes before all things [energy constructs] other than the emptiness to wit it belonds. ….and this is why you are talking to an empty box!




_

[amorphos_ii]

you could have asked; what is emptiness then for example?

[Hazel Mae Bagarinao]

There is always something than nothing. Everything you see has a purpose, even how tiny it is. It is a cycle, everything contributes for anyone for survival and enjoyment.

[Pattern-chaser]

I figuratively took the box into deep space and said; there, now there is nothing inside. Yet the box stated that it still has something in it, for it has space and dimension. Then even if we continue emptying it, such that there are not even any particles nor virtual particles inside, there would still be space and dimension within ~ and space is something.

We had a topic here not long ago, discussing whether space was some thing or nothing. It's a complicated discussion...

[amorphos_ii]

Well yes, its all kind of tied in together – not even sure if space is something without time/dimensions and energy. I was attempting to get to what that one thing is when e.g. there is no movement [like prior to the beginning of universe].

Most importantly though, I add everything into the mix – which includes being or mind. The simplest way to say it is...

It = either, neither, all

if so, then mind and physics derive from or are part of the same universal thing.

[Pattern-chaser]

if so, then mind and physics derive from or are part of the same universal thing.

Everything is connected to, and part of, everything else. But that isn't news, and I think this topic hopes to come up with something a little more specific? Perhaps I have that wrong...?

[amorphos_ii]

That the origins of universe are not physical, that the ‘it’ is something which can be time, space, energy, mind, spirit or anything else. In Druidism this is something we can draw from and come from, so the oneness described by ‘the empty box is full’ – what that is, is what I am attempting to understand. Is it infinity? when the finite [loosely speaking] also exists? The Druids called it Caugant – the divine infinite, the Hindus say that ‘you can take an infinity from an infinity and still be left with an infinity’ from which thinking calculus derives.

How can I be specific about something so universal and vast in scope? Something which contradicts itself in true ways? I think you are being a little unfair there maybe. ….i could say the philosophers stone perhaps? Is that specific enough.

[Pattern-chaser]

That the origins of universe are not physical, that the ‘it’ is something which can be time, space, energy, mind, spirit or anything else. In Druidism this is something we can draw from and come from, so the oneness described by ‘the empty box is full’ – what that is, is what I am attempting to understand. Is it infinity? when the finite [loosely speaking] also exists? The Druids called it Caugant – the divine infinite, the Hindus say that ‘you can take an infinity from an infinity and still be left with an infinity’ from which thinking calculus derives.

How can I be specific about something so universal and vast in scope?

I don't think you can. That is the nature of the subject we're discussing, isn't it? It's complicated, and there is little or no evidence, so we fall back, as we always have in philosophy, to serious, considered thought, in the knowledge that our discussions may well be useful to us, but will not reach any firm conclusions. How can we reach conclusions, when we have so little to go on?

[amorphos_ii]

I completely agree. ...but to contradict without disagreeing, we have limits to what reality can be ~ infinite, finite etc. lets take a more organic approach then: what if we thought of reality as like a hand; when closed it is one, when open it is multiple and as in us, individualised. So now we can add in the fundaments like time, where the closed hand would be like eternal time [infinite version of time], then the open hand is linear time i.e. how we experience it. Point is that the metaphor is describing one thing or even one object-ness, the hand.

So now add what we are into the mix, so ‘being’ and mind, will now take the shapes which the hand makes. There is a duality between body and mind [when they are the fingers], rocks don’t have mind or being, but objects derive from the same thing as them. One observer looks at another and they each see one another as objects, and yet there are only observers. The rock has no observer, so what we are seeing is the object which is part of something greater – the hand, which in turn must surely be an observer. This shows us that we can derive ‘object’ from a non object ~ where one eye seeing, sees the other eye as an eye. Perhaps that the same applies in the singular akin to looking in a mirror, and this is the object of our being.

_

[amorphos_ii]

edit; i meant that passive objects like rocks derive from the same thing as mind.