The ontological principle of infinite transmigration A;
This theory is a little like taking a rabbit out of a hat except in a sense we are doing it for real. For example with my thought experiment, ‘would an exact replica of you be ‘you’?’ I came to the conclusion that;
Principle; ‘You can take the whole part and particulars of a thing, then its duplication leaves the whole part of the thing remaining’ which is very similar to the Hindu principle of infinite expression below*. This remembering that the Hindu philosophy derives from the notion of godhead, where and infinite amount of souls/persons may be begat from the one, and the one contains an infinite amount of souls/persons. I would go further and state that all holistic entities of things, all ‘archetypes’ and other features of everything [planets, stars, trees, animals, universes ect] are contained in a single yet infinite expression. The holistic entities of things are then as real as any other.
It seams apparent that reality fundamentally works very differently or indeed in the opposite way to how it often works in physics ~ we cannot take an object from another object and have the primary object remaining. However when we break things down beyond the physical expressions then there becomes a whole different set of rules to the game. We can then begin to describe how you can indeed get a rabbit out of the hat or an universe from nothing.
Life and death do not exist, in reality we are simply drawing infinities from infinity and from one location within that to another, even though essentially locations are relative and don’t exist as such ~ only the comparatives and relationships change.
I doubt many of you have even read this far so I am happy to debate the above, or if you will continue to read all of this then we can debate that also…
The ontological principle of infinite transmigration B;
What makes something physical is that at a sub-atomic level the sets of relationships acting upon energy and working by universal principles are locked into what we call physical objects. Before we arrive at those then we have energy and principles, but I wonder what energy is when it is not formed into a particle or field, is energy itself even physical once we strip things down to their bare bones.
So what makes something solid?
Because we are composed of such energy patterns, if we hit something solid like concrete then to us it feels like a hard solid object. This is a sensory thing in relation to the impact of one set of patterns upon another and thence the potential damage, different patterns can change each other when they interact and to our experience of this there is a physicality. The solidity is perhaps then an holistic apparency, when we break down all our ideas about physics they are only physical in terms of their relationships with one another. At most this I think is only apparent in linear time and in the present, yet we can ask if that is relevant to the entire question concerning what the world is and is made of, once we take the question beyond those limits I think the term physics has a diminishing meaning which reduces to zero.
So what is the theory to the principle;
I will begin with the idea of an ‘infinite integer‘, I visualise this as a circle containing infinite potential or even an actual set of infinities…
The Isha Upanishad of the Yajurveda (c. 4th to 3rd century BC) states that "if you remove a part from infinity or add a part to infinity, still what remains is infinity". [note; this actually goes back to the 8th C BC]
Pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam (That is full, this is full)
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate (From the full, the full is subtracted)
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya (When the full is taken from the full)
pūrṇam evāvasiṣyate (The full still will remain.) - Isha Upanishad
So essentially the principles are;
The principle of infinite expression *‘you can extract an infinity from an infinity an have an infinity remaining’, or equally ‘you can take any part of an infinity {where in this case a ‘part’ of an infinity is also an infinity}, and continue to add infinities’.
Before we can arrive at the energy patterns we have to deal with the non physical. With the above principles we can make an endless amount of infinities but they are not in any way physical, this because that which distinguishes one from a given other are liminal [in-between] rather than cardinal distinctions. We are after all concerning ourselves with an emptiness.
We now need to get from sets of infinities to a limited amount of energy patterns, firstly we may have an infinite amount of infinities within the single circle as potentiality, however once we begin an actual process of dividing one infinity from another then other attributes are affixed to the process. I theorise that there has to be something which distinguishes one emptiness from another, and as we know/presume that the ‘universal principle of balance and polarity’ is acting in all atomic and sub-atomic particles, then why not jump to the idea that indeed this principle refers to the simplest set of operations which can be attributed to a given to a thing.
Essentially then you pull infinities from infinity where one liminal distinction is positive, another negative and the other neutral, and this must occur in a three-fold manner or in other words, at once. Now that we have this operation in progress we may expand it across the universe [singularity] and across ‘all-time’ [as the given set of used potentiality ~ there may be an all-time in each cycle of the universe for example], yet one process is three-fold and the other potentially unlimited, and this I feel is where we begin to find limits. The next stage is that you have these three elements [+/-] and in a composite there would then be the same process applied again and you get duplication thence six polar aspects which are the six kinds of quarks in a nucleus. This continues to be expressed becoming the periodic table of elements, and here we find another limit, when particles become too heavy they become radioactive and unstable. My physics in not very good at all so forgive my ‘shotgun philosophy’, but going on intuition I feel there is also a similar limit to the universal expression of all this in all-time, and that is why energy becomes conserved. Here we can begin to understand how limits are eventually arrived at and how energy can appear to have solidity accordingly, …however it is all an illusion.
that’s as far as I have got…
