The challenge: Define a wall.

Before you think that is too scientifically simple, try it this way.... in the beginning...

There is only LIFE.

LIFE is a single dimension.

Some may think all is connected, no WE are all ONE DIMENSION of LIFE. That being a simply truth that WE EXIST. And, that being the ONLY fact you have and only thing you could prove because you can think to yourself that WE EXIST as LIFE. (etc).... LIFE EXISTS.

In the beginning, LIFE created a wall...

We as this LIFE needed to somehow separate each of ourselves from this SINGLE DIMENSION of LIFE into individualism of WE....

How? Define that wall...

If you can do that, then define a solid physical wall.

Originally posted by zosomike
Walls between us (metaphorically) are only put up by ourselves clearly as a way of separation.
But you need to ask yourself WHY you need or want a wall?
Why do you want that separation?

Individualism. How do we get from nothing to individualism. Let's say out of nothing, one existed. This one just suddenly appeared big bang or creationism style when there was nothing before it. Now, how did this one become so divine to create individualism... and why?

It felt alone?

the wall is something that breaks when the 2 dimensional rhombus comes from out of nowhere(heaven) and crashes into the "dot".

all this metaphysics on a childs chalkboard...

There technically is a definition under mathematics.

The Matrix:-

( 1 0 )
( 0 -1 )

is actually known as "The Matrix of the Wall".

I like your thinking, in my 27 years of life on this planet, that has been my conclusion exactly and has boggled me. The big bang theory, is a little bit more believable than the God made the heaven and the earth in seven days theory...

But there could not have been nothing before the big bag, what ever cause the big bang ,had to have come from some where...

The equation is probably so simple that it would freak our minds out Totally.

Individualism..., We are not individuals, all our energies work together to give us the total out come...

Be Thankful, Greatful, and LOVE no matter what

Originally posted by aristocrat2
is actually known as "The Matrix of the Wall".

We haven't got to define intelligence because we are still in the beginning. Still need a wall to know the difference.

Are we talking about before the start of creation or during the process of creation (which at this very moment we are still in)?

Originally posted by psy_smurf
But there could not have been nothing before the big bag, what ever cause the big bang ,had to have come from some where...

So maybe then "nothing" is the wall becuase NOTHING can pass through it.

In the beginning, nothing passed through the wall, ...

boom... the big bang hit the wall... noticed it couldn't pass through it... so it only appears on one side...

Is it good?

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Are we talking about before the start of creation or during the process of creation (which at this very moment we are still in)?

Time is meaningless, still.

If something created something else then somehow something knew time to create something else, so somehow that needs to be undone to figure out if time defined the wall or the wall defined time.

Guess I should capitalize Wall and Time as if they are alive in the single dimension of LIFE.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by zosomike
Walls between us (metaphorically) are only put up by ourselves clearly as a way of separation.
But you need to ask yourself WHY you need or want a wall?
Why do you want that separation?

Individualism. How do we get from nothing to individualism. Let's say out of nothing, one existed. This one just suddenly appeared big bang or creationism style when there was nothing before it. Now, how did this one become so divine to create individualism... and why?

It felt alone?

It prolly felt that if it had something good that it should share it. Rather than felt alone. Afterall it had to create the being alone feeling I would think.

Well either way, I have your answer; Polarity. Duality. Dualism.

The Observer, and The Observed.

This is the metaphorical wall you speak of, that exists as the very foundation of reality and our existence.

In the book, The God Theory, the author discusses the reasoning for why "God" would create. And the question is actually quite simple; he has potential that he wants to utilize. He wants to experience his potential. Not only does he have no way in the very beginning to experience his potential but he has no one to observe him. He is both The Observer and The Observed; he wants to divide those two roles between two separate entities.

Essentially, how can a magnificent, benevolent being be magnificent, or benevolent? Those are both attributions an Observer gives to the Observed; if he is both, he can not be magnificent or benevolent.

Originally posted by Totalstranger
the wall is something that breaks when the 2 dimensional rhombus comes from out of nowhere(heaven) and crashes into the "dot".

all this metaphysics on a childs chalkboard...

What's the "dot"?

If there is only single dimension of LIFE, then there is no dot. There is just infinite LIFE with no defined space or time to even define a dot.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
Well either way, I have your answer; Polarity. Duality. Dualism.

The Observer, and The Observed.

Ok, need to elaborate on how these are the answer.

This is the metaphorical wall you speak of, that exists as the very foundation of reality and our existence.

Actually, I think the foundation starts with Nothing and Something, yet I thought I start with something a bit easier from there to conceptualize as to define a wall.

he has potential that he wants to utilize.

He, she, it, etc hasn't yet materialized no know the difference of what the fig(ure) leaf hides.

Therefore, god is a direction. The direction is the wall. How do we know the direction is the wall? Because Nothing can pass though it, so god is the opposite direction of the wall.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by dzonatas]

I believe we have fundamental differences in belief then.

I believe "God", The Source, whatever you want to call it, has always existed. It wasn't here nor there, this or that; it simply is. This being itself exists outside space-time. There was nothing before him because there was no before for him. He simply is.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
I don't believe in the bible word for word, and I'm not a Christian.

This thread isn't to test anyone's belief. There is no right or wrong answer for this thread. It's just... define a wall.

There may be some conspiracy notions and such nuances brought up and pointed out because between point A and point B somehow seems.... conspired! What I mean in the OP is to somehow basically agree that life exists as a smiply truth, and let's go from there to define a wall. Now, there are cultures that have tried to start with other notions of God, The Source, Earth, etc etc, as if those existed first. The conspiracy there is somehow there is that ordinal "first" being stated, and logically that means somehow there was something before whatever it is that they pointed out which would define that ordinal sense.

See where that gets harder? We could digress into that further, yet I hoped that this thread doesn't turn into a bible bash or science bash. Instead of the bash, just boundaries of philosophy or spirituality works here.

Life hasn't always existed, unless you consider The Source to be alive; which I think isn't accurate. The Source exists beyond the realms of duality.

I'm not sure of your viewpoint on duality, as to me it generally denotes separate senses for appearance of the same. Otherwise, I just not sure of the context yet. That's why I try to start with simple words like "nothing" and "something" and try to build upon ideas from there.

So you mean that The Source is 'something,' yet not the same 'something' as Life. Therefore, this duality exists between "Something." That sound logical you?

And we are still in this process of creation

The power to create is the power to destroy.

Remember the oldest of spiritual traditions, All was once One, and that One decided to create Many. Eventually, the Many will rejoin One again.

You would like my example of perfect spheres with an infinite surface.

In this belief, the metaphorical wall starts when the One decided to create Many.

An infinite single dimension is infinite therefore it was always many of the same exact dimension.

This are not just purely random things I make up. These are expressions of logic existentialism added with the notion of infinite life.

I think you should read The God Theory. It's a pretty short book and a very good read. It acts as a sort of gateway to more esoteric beliefs in reality and existence.

I appreciate the tip.

Let me retouch on the notion of infinite life. I've mentioned this elsewhere, yet the atheist view of life is the there is death when the body is buried dead and that's it in their viewpoint where that piece of life ends. I used to be called an atheist until I could prove elsewise. I don't really expect to prove it to anybody else, yet I do realize I'm alive now. I exist. In my current viewpoint on some ordinary sense of time, the possibility of infinite life exists. If I thought my life ended upon burial, the that logically means I though infinite death is possible. If there is a end and there is no begin after that end then that would be infinite death. Now the fallacy here is to think that the infinite didn't exist if one claims infinite death is possible in any mere suggestion of it. If the infinite didn't exist, then infinite death wouldn't exist. If infinite death didn't exist, then... life exists.

In fact, if you review that logical existentialism carefully, you'll notice life exists infinitely with no end and no begin.


[edit on 9-2-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by yeahright
Good, but deep and heady stuff. Think Discordianism and chaos magic, only with some math.

Excellent reference. It's seem like his book is the masculine version of discrete math. I say masculine because discrete math tends to predicate math itself with fashionable logic symbols.

These symbols, logic, and distinctions should be taught or made easily available to 5 year olds to learn. To hold it back to college years just doesn't make sense. I can understand where some thought lambda calculus may be needed first, yet if a 5 years can do arithmetic then these symbols should come first before mathematics.

It's just language, really.