Thread: Highest Universe

At the top? I think there would be lots and lots of LSD.

If you go by superstring theory, then there would be 11 dimensions. You don't actually need an infinite amount of dimensions, because an infinite number of universes fit into the lower dimensions. So you have an infinite number of things but they still all fit within a finite number of dimensions. All of which are still physical, but take forms we can not really comprehend.

Originally Posted by petersonad

If there were infinite levels, planes, realms, and dimensions in a supernatural world or universe, what do you think would be at the "top"? In my opinion, the "top" would no longer be physical.

You really have to define your question better. Are you referring to universes within eachother? Because that's different from dimensions. And what do you mean by supernatural? Levels? Planes? And doesn't having an 'inifinte' amount of them by definition mean there is no 'top'?

Supernatural = beyond natural.

Beyond natural = doesn't exist.

Thread is moot.

/thread

Non-being. Non-physical occurs before the top. The very tippy, tippy top is the conscious and penetrating void that surrounds and consumes us. God is the darkness. Buah ha ha ha ha.

Also Tommo nice fallacy but I'm afraid it's more like this

Supernatural = above natural

Unnatural = Doesn't exist

Supernatural =/= unnatural

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Also Tommo nice fallacy but I'm afraid it's more like this

Supernatural = above natural

Above natural = beyond natural

beyond natural = still doesn't exist

Originally Posted by Meakel

Above natural = beyond natural

beyond natural = still doesn't exist

I'm afraid you're confining the world to words rather than using words to navigate the world. Why don't I just respond with this?

Doesn't exist = Nothing

Nothing = Natural

Nature = non-existent.

Or perhaps what you can do is this

Supernature >= Nature

Nothing <= Nature

Everything <= Nature

Your awareness on this subject <= Nature

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'm afraid you're confining the world to words rather than using words to navigate the world. Why don't I just respond with this?

Doesn't exist = Nothing

Nothing = Natural

Nature = non-existent.

Or perhaps what you can do is this

Supernature >= Nature

Nothing <= Nature

Everything <= Nature

Your awareness on this subject <= Nature

Might you explain why nothing = natural?

As for your latter argument, please don't resort to petty insults, I would prefer we kept this somewhat civil.

It's hard for to explain what I mean by the top. What are was trying to say is that once you reach a point of ascension where you feel that your pretty high, or high enough, what would it be like?

Originally Posted by petersonad

It's hard for to explain what I mean by the top. What are was trying to say is that once you reach a point of ascension where you feel that your pretty high, or high enough, what would it be like?

Wait. Okay. Are we talking about this in terms of theoretical physics, spirituality, or recreational drug use?

I'm no philosopher but it seems like your trying to use a description from whatever we're in right now, I'll say an earthly realm, to describe something that's not of this earthly realm, it's like trying to describe sight to someone who can't see at all.

I think it would be Milla Jovovich's vagina.

Originally Posted by Meakel

Might you explain why nothing = natural?

As for your latter argument, please don't resort to petty insults, I would prefer we kept this somewhat civil.

I was not insulting you.

If everything that exists is natural and nothing exists then nothing is natural. If nothing does not exist, it is still natural as non-existence.

Originally Posted by Meakel

Wait. Okay. Are we talking about this in terms of theoretical physics, spirituality, or recreational drug use?

I'm basically asking for you to use your imagination. There may not be endless planes to ascend, but what would it be like if we could ascend that high. I'm speaking in terms of imagination.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I was not insulting you.

Your awareness on this subject <= Nature

Yeah.

But whatever, not the point.

If everything that exists is natural and nothing exists then nothing is natural. If nothing does not exist, it is still natural as non-existence.

Nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is the absence of existence.

That's not what nothing is.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That's not what nothing is.

Educate me.

You can't teach someone what nothing is. I suppose if you HAVE to use words to describe nothing, then you defined it well enough. But encasing the idea of nothing into words and assuming you understand what non-existence is because you can describe it inhibits your awareness.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You can't teach someone what nothing is. I suppose if you HAVE to use words to describe nothing, then you defined it well enough. But encasing the idea of nothing into words and assuming you understand what non-existence is because you can describe it inhibits your awareness.

Oh, so now we're talking about linguistic epistemology. Great.

Back to the original point, you said nothing is natural so nature doesn't exist? That makes no sense. All I'm asking you to do, is explain your rather vague and ambiguous post. Explain to me what non-existence is then. What more am I missing? Don't hide behind this fluff. Tell me what YOU think nothing is so that we can have a discussion about it. Telling me it's this unknowable concept is pointless. I understand epistemology, I know what the limitations of words are, and attempting to use it in an argument is pointless. I could argue the same point in every single other discussion and it would serve no purpose.

You claim to understand the limitation of words but you don't show any inclination to think deeper than the surface value of the arguments proposed. I made that argument just to show how easily words with loose definitions can be tossed around to make fallacious logic. Let me attempt to exemplify this for you. The most accurate way of putting "You're knowledge on the subject <= Nature," would have been "Our knowledge on the subject..." But I didn't, I put it all on you. You took it offensively, as is natural, but nothing I said is actually offensive. You can only HOPE your knowledge on ANYTHING is less than or equal to nature. I was merely stating fact that every human being must digest. Unfortunately we don't know everything. Worse yet, we don't know anything. If we hope to understand anything, though, first we must postulate that more is than just what exists.

All knowledge is removed by the very existence of nothing. This is a paradox but I'm not going to explain it, explaining nothing is like trying to paint a sound.

I'm not still worried about the whole 'your knowledge' thing, I'm past it. But don't attempt to rationalize it by showing my how 'easily loose definitions can be tossed around'. And 'putting it all on me', actually yes that does kind of make it offensive.

But that's done.

I feel like what were originally discussing as gotten very very muddled up. Let's start over. What I'm trying to say, is that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Supernatural things do not exist. Now your point?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Also Tommo nice fallacy but I'm afraid it's more like this

Supernatural = above natural

Unnatural = Doesn't exist

Supernatural =/= unnatural

Nope... No I definitely had it correct. As meakel said.

If you say something is beyond nature, or above or whatever.... greater than nature. You are saying it doesn't exist.

Nature is EVERYTHING that exists.

If you say "There is a SUPERnatural ball" It means you are saying there is a ball outside of nature.
BUT, NATURE IS EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS. So that ball is really just another part of nature.

You can't argue that. It's titanium logic.

I was trying to bring things back to the OPs topic but very well.

The word we have to observe in detail here is nature. We can describe this as all things that have come to pass naturally. The logical leap is that everything that occurs is natural. But if everything is natural anyways, there does not need to be a word for it in the first place. The question is, if something is not natural what else could it possibly be? You seem to be stating there is nothing that is not natural. I'm stating I can describe nothing that is not natural.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I was trying to bring things back to the OPs topic but very well.

The word we have to observe in detail here is nature. We can describe this as all things that have come to pass naturally. The logical leap is that everything that occurs is natural. But if everything is natural anyways, there does not need to be a word for it in the first place.

By that logic, there doesn't need to be a word "everything".

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The question is, if something is not natural what else could it possibly be? (WHAT? That is not the question at all.)
You seem to be stating there is nothing that is not natural. I'm stating I can describe nothing that is not natural.

You can describe nothing that is not natural because there is nothing that is not natural.