A is self circular not infinite...is defined ! I apply the Big Bounce Theory in to it...but you can use other models as long they take this into account...A has to be stable !

you are saying A has boundaries? then what is outside of A?

why cant A be infinite inwardly? why cant it be infinite outwardly also since it expands infinitely ?

there is nothing that will not fit in 'mind' ...even yours or mine!

We might just be missing a certain something from these preconceived ideas, we must dismiss all these notions and determine by what we do know, not what we assume.

Im not denying nor am i confirming your attempt at theorising. I'm asking you not to be so certain or be certain of what is accepted science. You have made proposals on what has been acceptable on the observed evidence, you have based your argument on other proposals that in themselves could be suspect. Im asking you not to be dogmatic, something you are accusing others of being.

Did you see me mention the torus universe, as the proverbial spanner in the works for most debatable arguments, when we are consider the universe and its birth. Im not saying its proven only that other proposed scenarios put all our theories into dogmatic positions. If we ever admit we are certain then it is time for us to stop debating, put our slippers on and make a nice cup of tea. Can I prove you wrong? no, but equally you cant be certain your proposals are correct, giving we have so many unknowables in the equation.

I agree as soon as we make a statement it can be considered dogmatic, but its the attention to dogma that concerns me, it always has. My only concern, as you must have realised, is not your logic on the accepted science but IF the accepted science is correct. We cant theories on a false premise.

I think its a common endeavour, to search for answers, but if you assume before the door is open then you will be questioned. I see certain footprints in the sand but i try not describe the owner before i see the foot. Im not saying your not advancing our understanding or your attitude is wrong, just making a comment on your belief that your theory is based on a certainty, that for me is not certain.

The certainty is only in the a priori form of the argument. There is no absolute certainty about the actual proof proposed; just in the form of the argument. The logic is consistent, and so is the necessity. In in this regard, the argument amounts to the philosophical equivalent to a mathematical theory (though this too is debatable); and it awaits its only possible empirical proof by way of whatever predictions are made by the theory. The one most significant prediction that follows is that time will cease in the future, and all things will become infinite in their form. There are theological considerations besides this that follow, but I haven't posted any of these considerations. I can say however that there is much more to the argument than can be seen on the surface, or from a few readings of the argument. It will take time to gell in the mind of even the most astute reader.

i must admit i havent yet grasped it entirely.

but i keep trying to put the world around me into the theory-for instance, where does humanity fit? what part of it are we? or is it a case of A, B and X being a part of everything?

i wasnt seeing A as being material, nor B either-but then if X split off from B, it must have become matter at that point. if human beings or any other (or every other) part of creation are both mind and matter, i dont know what to make of it.

should i not go that route and try and grasp the logic first?

i

Quote:

must admit i havent yet grasped it entirely.

but i keep trying to put the world around me into the theory-for instance, where does humanity fit? what part of it are we? or is it a case of A, B and X being a part of everything?

X split off from B gives us the mass (substance) from which the material universe arose ... and so, as physical (in part) particulars in the universe, we have been fashioned out of the substance of X. Design took place after the critical stage of the series that preceded and initiated the big bang; meaning by the critical stage, that stage wherein B split from X, and obtained to A. Our non-physical esence (spirit ... life ... mind) has been infused (given) to us by B, which is also spirit, and Absolute Mind.

Quote:

i wasnt seeing A as being material,

A = an Absolute, eternal immaterial essence (within which B and X are contained), and to this we can give the name spirit. So you are right. A is not material.

Quote:

nor B either-but then if X split off from B, it must have become matter at that point.

That's right. But the preceding series accounts for how this X came to be ... intensifying from a state approximating nothing at all (its ultimate beginning), and intensifying through the causal series explained to a point of infinite density: Hence, the singularity (a point of zero spacetime with infinite density, or mass).

Quote:

if human beings or any other (or every other) part of creation are both mind and matter, i dont know what to make of it.

Only physical living beings with mind are both mind and matter. The process of creation is just as science has it, a process of development, from one stage to the next, from the first single celled organisms, to Homo sapiens.

Quote:

should i not go that route and try and grasp the logic first?

If you follow the above then you have a decent grasp of the argument. But it's a conceptual system. You can only grasp it fully by first imagining it ... by taking the principles and by actually visualizing what they are saying. If someone lacks visual/conceptual abilities (something like the thinking of an artist who sees what they are going to paint) it will be next to impossible to grasp the argument.

The system cannot work in any other way than defined by the principles; and that is what gives the argument its a priori, necessity.

Quote:

one Nature to things...they are all replicas of One, "building" an axis of complexity, as I said, through a Time\Space simulated referential, witch itself is an axis in A..

I agree that all things came from some eternal unity (one), but I'm a visualist, and I can visualize a causal process wherein mass is generated by B's movement to A by means of a successively intensifying series. What you're saying I cannot visualize. Can it be visualized? Can you clarify 'simulated referential' ... the axis in A I can agree with, but I need to intuitively grasp/visualize what you're saying in order to comprehend it fully ... like I visualize and comprehend the Causal Argument, and the necessity in the movement of B to A. Because I cannot avoid seeing the necessity in the process defined by the Causal Argument I cannot consider the argument as a simple conjecture, or possibility ... it had to work the way the principles explain. The argument answers Kant, and in this, it rises above the level of a mere conjecture.

Is there strict necessity involved in the simulated referential?

Or, is it conjecture? I don't know, unless I can grasp it more fully.

Fil. Albuquerque;101056 wrote:

I agree that all things came from some eternal unity (one), but I'm a visualist, and I can visualize a causal process wherein mass is generated by B's movement to A by means of a successively intensifying series. What you're saying I cannot visualize. Can it be visualized? Can you clarify 'simulated referential' ... the axis in A I can agree with, but I need to intuitively grasp/visualize what you're saying in order to comprehend it fully ... like I visualize and comprehend the Causal Argument, and the necessity in the movement of B to A. Because I cannot avoid seeing the necessity in the process defined by the Causal Argument I cannot consider the argument as a simple conjecture, or possibility ... it had to work the way the principles explain. The argument answers Kant, and in this, it rises above the level of a mere conjecture.

Is there strict necessity involved in the simulated referential?

Or, is it conjecture? I don't know, unless I can grasp it more fully.

i am following you pretty close then, i think.

but my small contention is somewhat akin to what Fil is saying. i cant see that X could be totally made of matter-not any part of it i mean. for instance, since you say we are fashioned from x but both matter and mind, along with all living physical beings, there is a separation here between everything that is not living, and that doesnt seem right to me. maybe it is because you are visualizing mind as having capacity for thought-where this thing which Fil calls Order and you call Mind i think of as consciousness, which (in my estimation) does not have to have any capacity for thought or will, simply an awareness that would correspond to the sensory apparatus in its material existence, if it has reached the point of gaining material existence.

i cant see any X material having any reality if it were not wholly a part of A, or at least attached to it in some way. but i think it needs more than simply being contained within it to subsist or sustain itself.

Shostakovich;101108 wrote:

Quote:

i am following you pretty close then, i think.

but my small contention is somewhat akin to what Fil is saying. i cant see that X could be totally made of matter-not any part of it i mean. for instance, since you say we are fashioned from x but both matter and mind, along with all living physical beings, there is a separation here between everything that is not living, and that doesnt seem right to me.

In my argument I'm arguing that the only property with Consciousness or Mind, or Life, is A; and everything with life, intelligence, mind, consciousness, has that capacity given to it, somehow, by A, and this could be through B which is equated to A, as a pure, dynamic force of Mind. B equates to a Absolute, Supreme Being, and we have mind given/implanted into our physical bodies, because B provides it, to give us life and intelligence/consciousness. The human brain is more than just the sum of its parts, and it is this life/consciousness/spirit essence that is over and above the physical, that accounts for our being. Our physical properties are fashioned out of the 'unconcious' material substance of X.

What I'm saying then is that we are both physical in form, but we have a spirit essence that gives us life and consciousness, and the capacity to think and experience.

Quote:

maybe it is because you are visualizing mind as having capacity for thought-where this thing which Fil calls Order and you call Mind i think of as consciousness, which (in my estimation) does not have to have any capacity for thought or will, simply an awareness that would correspond to the sensory apparatus in its material existence, if it has reached the point of gaining material existence.

Here I think we can come to some agreement by allowing our abstract terms to float into each other to some extent.

i

Quote:

cant see any X material having any reality if it were not wholly a part of A, or at least attached to it in some way. but i think it needs more than simply being contained within it to subsist or sustain itself.

X has to be seen from the argument as having diverged (changed) in its form from A, through the movement of B to A. It has, that is, emerged from A, but has split off in its form, from A. Were it to revert back to A, is would be dissolved back into its underlying, fundamental essence, which is A.

Is this intelligible?

This is the way the argument has it. A is as Fil would say, not exceeded; as B and X are contained within A, and made possible only through and within A. It is the Absolute that is the determinate of all other things, material and immaterial.

salima;101119 wrote:

Shostakovich;101108 wrote:

In my argument I'm arguing that the only property with Consciousness or Mind, or Life, is A; and everything with life, intelligence, mind, consciousness, has that capacity given to it, somehow, by A, and this could be through B which is equated to A, as a pure, dynamic force of Mind. B equates to a Absolute, Supreme Being, and we have mind given/implanted into our physical bodies, because B provides it, to give us life and intelligence/consciousness. The human brain is more than just the sum of its parts, and it is this life/consciousness/spirit essence that is over and above the physical, that accounts for our being. Our physical properties are fashioned out of the 'unconcious' material substance of X.

What I'm saying then is that we are both physical in form, but we have a spirit essence that gives us life and consciousness, and the capacity to think and experience.

Here I think we can come to some agreement by allowing our abstract terms to float into each other to some extent.
i
X has to be seen from the argument as having diverged (changed) in its form from A, through the movement of B to A. It has, that is, emerged from A, but has split off in its form, from A. Were it to revert back to A, is would be dissolved back into its underlying, fundamental essence, which is A.

Is this intelligible?

This is the way the argument has it. A is as Fil would say, not exceeded; as B and X are contained within A, and made possible only through and within A. It is the Absolute that is the determinate of all other things, material and immaterial.

i think we can set aside the details of the interior, and say that we agree on the basic premises.

but once again i am stymied at the end where you mention there being will. you say will arose out of B attaining to A. the only rationale i have that there could be an intent or will in a supreme being is because we as individuals (though i dont believe we are individuals at all) seem to feel that we have will and power. so how can it be that we would have something the absolute would not have? but i am guessing it is in its infancy and not fully developed, if in fact it is there.

i do not see the supreme being as omnipotent...at least not yet. perhaps it is going through the same struggle we as individuals face-that being the issue of trying to learn to get out of our own way. but of course i realize that is only imagination on my part...like the artist you mentioned envisioning the painting.

one of the things i read in philosophy and i forgot who said it, was that the painting is greater than the idea of the painting in the mind of the artist. i have to say i disagree there-because i can imagine far more better paintings than i would ever be able to execute. but i lack the skill, training and knowledge to create them.

suppose all our sorrows, all our hopes and dreams and trials and losses are jointly owned by this one being who is even more aghast at what we have done than we are, as far as war, crime, ruthlessness and apathy, etc. and all our joys and loves and triumphs and breakthroughs as well...you can see how my thoughts tend to babble on...but i doubt i am helping you any with your argument, much as i would like to.