What's the Context of existence?

[tsuki]

Context of existence is non-existence. But non-existence does not exist.

[BipolarGrowth]

Existence is in the context of nonexistence which is in the context of existence and this just goes on forever and fornever. There’s no context if you realize that existence and nonexistence are the same meta-thing which is a pretty rare thing for someone to reach in understanding/insight but a good place in understanding/insight to get to. 

[snowyowl]

4 hours ago, Someone here said:

what i meant to say where is existence located? After contemplating it, it turns out to be located nowhere.. Is that correct?

Maybe the reason for your discomfort is that you're trying to understand a paradox with your linear-thinking mind. 

Existence is another name for everything and everywhere. Asking where something is located is assuming there is a larger space outside that thing, inside which the smaller thing occupies a definable part. When I was a kid I'd write my address something like: 4 Acacia Avenue, Croydon, London, England, UK, Europe, The World, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy, The Universe. You're asking what comes next? 

Everything is very different to something is because it has no boundary to define what's inside vs outside it.  And we aren't used to thinking about or visualising boundless things. You are trying to shoehorn the boundless into boundaries and it isn't working. I think that's why we say that everything has more in common with nothing, than something. Nothing is also boundless. 

It's uncomfortable because it's challenging us to jump out of our regular way of thinking about things, our map of reality. Did you do set theory at school? We used to draw a big rectangle to represent the universal set, everything, and then circles inside the rectangle to represent things and groups of things within the universal. It's as if we are imagine the whole of existence like that big rectangle, but of course you can never draw a rectangle large enough to encompass everything. 

Edited December 27, 2021 by snowyowl

[Carl-Richard]

Nothing.

[mememe]

@Someone here why do you think, no one can answer this question for you but yourself?

why is it uncomfortable for you? 

„there is no inherent meaning“ is a matter of search and discovery, absolute nothingness only always a starting point.

[Someone here]

@Tim R no I didn't say or imply none existence. I know that none existence Is impossible. 

My question was what's the Context of existence? And as it turns out for me it's nothing or nowhere. 

[Someone here]

14 hours ago, snowyowl said:

You're asking what comes next? 

Yes. What's your answer to this question...? Where is the universe contained? 

[snowyowl]

6 hours ago, Someone here said:

Yes. What's your answer to this question...? Where is the universe contained? 

The universe is the container. Ie the space-time continuum, which contains things like stars, planets, black holes etc ("the 10,000 things" in Buddhism). 

But I'm wrong too because I'm using dualistic language (container/contained). What contains the container? Nothing because I'm defining the universe as the entire space-time. The only thing outside the universe is nothing. So if you insist, I could say nothing contains the universe. But not really because there's no boundary between them. It's not like the universe is on the inside, and nothing is on the outside. 

Edited December 28, 2021 by snowyowl

[snowyowl]

https://www.space.com/whats-beyond-universe-edge 

"But even if the universe is finite, it doesn't necessarily mean there is an edge or an outside. It could be that our three-dimensional universe is embedded in some larger, multidimensional construct. That's perfectly fine and is indeed a part of some exotic models of physics. But currently, we have no way of testing that, and it doesn't really affect the day-to-day operations of the cosmos.

The universe simply is. It is entirely mathematically self-consistent to define a three-dimensional universe without requiring an outside to that universe. When you imagine the universe as a ball floating in the middle of nothing, you're playing a mental trick on yourself that the mathematics does not require." 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe 

" In principle, the other unconnected universes may have different dimensionalities and topologies of spacetime, different forms of matter and energy, and different physical laws and physical constants, although such possibilities are purely speculative."

So even if there is an outside to 'our' space-time, why should it obey the same rules of science, logic, mathematics etc? Our models may be way off! 

Edited December 28, 2021 by snowyowl

[Someone here]

@snowyowl so is it accurate to say that the universe exists nowhere?

[snowyowl]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@snowyowl so is it accurate to say that the universe exists nowhere?

Judging by the quotes I did, we're speculating about something which has no scientific evidence yet, by which to measure accuracy. 

[snowyowl]

To give an analogy, what's beyond your perception? Does anything exist which we can't see? 

Well, perhaps, but it's theory and speculation. 

What's beyond your speculation? 

(Key. Perception: observable universe. Theory and speculation: science eg the big bang, string theory).

Edited December 28, 2021 by snowyowl

[Tim R]

8 hours ago, Someone here said:

My question was what's the Context of existence? And as it turns out for me it's nothing or nowhere. 

@Someone here Yes, existence has no context and is not located anywhere.

[Zeroguy]

Life is a dream. 

[The0Self]

On 12/27/2021 at 11:46 AM, Someone here said:

@Inliytened1 is it truly groundless?  That's literally mind blowing. Lol 

Yep. It certainly is lol. Context is as unreal as it is real, and it's exactly as real as it seems. Nothing is hidden from view. "Reality" in this sense is not true because it is not not-two. There is absolutely no real context. Mind blowing, indeed. Utterly. There is no position or location. There is only everywhere i.e. nowhere. The illusion is simply the apparently real difference between 1. Anything, and 2. Everything.

As there is no real context, there can be no real wrong. Or right. No exclusive right, anyway -- you could say that whatever is, is right.

Edited December 28, 2021 by The0Self

[VeganAwake]

It can't be grasped because it's not stable or permanent.

The so-called grasping is realizing its ungraspable.

 

[Zeroguy]

3 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

It can't be grasped because it's not stable or permanent.

The so-called grasping is realizing its ungraspable.

 

When main character in soap realizes... 

[Zeroguy]

Also where this pseudo-intellectual debates leads?!

What is Reality?Answer :God and that's it.