I think this is a sort of moot discussion. There's no reason to think that an ALL MUST be infinitely divisible if it consists in material things. A quark or a gluon is not necessarily divisible -- you may speak of or conceive of half a quark, but that doesn't mean it's an ACTUAL division in nature. And the universe, even if it is ALL, may consist of a FINITE number of subatomic particles. So you can theoretically account for 100% of the mass in the universe and 100% of the discrete, indivisible, material units in the universe, even if the universe has nothing outside of it.

But what makes this moot is our understanding of Heisenberg uncertainty, which means that you cannot quantify the universe whether it's infinite or finite -- you can only speak of probabilities and not 'things' if you divide everything down to its simplest elements.

I just do not see the value in saying "apple is true", even in some existential fashion.

A declarative statement would be a claim. I have a cat, for example. That I have a cat is either true or false; I'm just not sure how cat is true or false.

Then I think you should reconsider the term incompatibility. Just because we can pick out objective differences in two things does not mean that those two things are incompatible. We can differentiate between hydrogen and oxygen, yet they are compatible enough to form water.

You can substitute the word truth for the word real if you like. Just seems misleading to me.

The difference between hydrogen and oxygen? I'm no scientists, and I got a C in high school chemistry, but I would imagine both have different compositions and different atomic weights. But that's the point, they are different yet compatible.

Yes, I will happily take that liberty, being the dreamer and eccentric that I am. But am i right to take it? I don't know. A dreamer is not necessarily a true believer.

Are hydrogen and oxygen made of the same stuff, or different stuff? Because if they are made of the same stuff, how can they be different?

My goal in saying all of this stuff, in asking all of these inane questions, is not to argue a point; rather, it is--believe it or not--simply to ask inane questions. No belief should prevent us from asking any question.

Sure, they are fundamentally composed of the same stuff, or nonstuff, or what have you. But they can still be different. If I cut my hair today, I am different than I was yesterday because I have rearranged my hair.

So it is form, and not substance, that differentiates all things?

We might call those objective differences form, but I'm not sure if these differences are some inherent form, or simply the way humans tend to organize and differentiate out of convenience.

Can something exist and have no physical properties? Fictional fabrications, or intangables like fear or love which exist only in concept (without physical properties). So then concepts exist in a diferent mode than physicality. They may be made of (physical) sungular compnent truths but put into a composit that is false or at least a non existant concept. But can I concieve of any singular component truth that does'nt exist? No, because it would not be a component truth if indeed it did not exist, right?

Now it is my turn to drop the G bomb:). I suspect that the reason for reducing averything down to one substance is to show that God exist in the physical mode. It could be said that if God were to exist in physicality He could be ALL THINGS and therefore transend meer concept. So seeming to be specifically absent God is actually ALL THINGS.

Can something exist and have no physical properties? Fictional fabrications, or intangables like fear or love which exist only in concept (without physical properties). So then concepts exist in a diferent mode than physicality. They may be made of (physical) sungular compnent truths but put into a composit that is false or at least a non existant concept. But can I concieve of any singular component truth that does'nt exist? No, because it would not be a component truth if indeed it did not exist, right?

I like this argument, but I would have to say that it still requires belief because it is a concept. ALL THINGS must be reduced to one substance in order for it/God to become the modality of singular component truth, and still it is a leap of faith to call that one substance God (in my humble opinion).

I believe God is a concept and a phenomenon revealed through revilation requiring only faith and is therefore above reason and empericle proof.

THINGS are diferentiated by form, and also duration, and relation, and mass, and so on. So What. Without distinction there is only meaningless ether.

What do you mean by thing and what do you mean by physical property?

Do love and fear exist without physical properties? Are they not results of a physical process, ie, some process occurring in the brain?

Though I think you are right about non existent concepts. Maybe there are such things, because we have not thought of them, but we surely cannot give and example because to do so would be to conceive of them.

Why would we call everything God? Wouldn't it just be everything?

Requiring only faith? Then why do not more of the faithful have such revelations? Psychedelic experiences from LSD, for example, are no different than episodes of revelation described by mystics from just about every tradition. They obvious do not require faith, but only that one ingest some substance.

And what of God is a phenomenon; I thought you said God was everything. Is He always everything, or only everything when this particular phenomenon occurs?
But if God is some phenomenon, then isn't the experience of said phenonmenon empirical evidence of God (you used the word proof even though there is no such thing as empirical proof, while there is logical proof).

Anyways, how could God be above reason and empirical investigation? Didn't you use these very tools to arrive at the conclusion that everything is one thing, namely God?

How is the unorganized meaningless? Does reality change because we humans call things this and that?

I mean if there is no physicality then it doesn't exist.

Let me use another example, SPACE. Space doent exist it is a place between things that do exist so it is a concept of something that has no physicality. It is a modality of non-existance, yes?

My point is that knowledge of God is not emperical.

As for drug induced hallucinations, the trip requires only ingestion but interpretation of the results to spiritual truth require faith.

Again, I don't believ God exists outside of the mode of a nonexistant concept.

Saiboimushi- To me God is the truth, whatever truth is. He is all that really exists.

All that exist must exist: there must be an all, so far as I can see. This all cannot have anything outside of it, or exist apart from other thing, or else it would not be all.

Saiboimushi- I know you are laughing at my folly because reading my posts must resemble someone falling down on Americas Funniest Videos.

1) That there is NOT a singular (ALL) because I believe in the possibility of NOTHINGNESS. That means that there are two modalities existence and nonexistence. Now if you say that nothingness is a thing that is included in ALL, I say that is illogical. Plurality is my position.

2) You say space exists? Perhaps as a concept or condition of area between THINGS. Does zero exist? How about negative three? These are not things that are real outside of their being concepts.

3) Didymos you ask about my idea of a nonexistent concept. What I meant was a concept of nonexistence. I do NOT believe that everything I conceive must be existent in a physical modality. Some thing I conceive of can exist ONLY AS A CONCEPT. The argument that God exist because I can conceive Him could mean that He exist only in concept and not in physicality/reality.

Does mind exist? If you say yes, then show me a mind. What is the physicality of mind, brain? Are you your brain?

Do I think mind exists? YES, but not in a physical mode. It is a phenomenon created by the brain and its consciousness. It (the mind) is a phenomenon. I mean that one of the definitions of a phenomenon is that which appears real to the senses, regardless of whether its underlying existence is proved or its nature understood.

Isn't consciousness a function of the brain, though? You say mind is the result of the brain, but then claim that mind is not physical. But how can something physical produce something entirely non-physical?

But is it not paradoxical to say that nothing exists as a thing, then it could no longer be nothing could it?