If we assume that the Ego is by definiton an assertion of individuality, that is, that it is not possible for the Ego to terminate itself, the fact that a person is able to kill him/herself moved by a belief or a cultural norm proves that there is no such a thing as an Ego, which in nondualistic terms means that what we call “I” does not in reality exist as a distinct entity.

The demonstration is simple: such a suicide, which as any other behavior is ego-driven, leaves no room for anything else distinct from those suicidal beliefs that could perform the role of the Ego, therefore there is no Ego since that would contradict the assumption.

In other words, if there were an Ego it wouldn’t be possible to exist a culturaly-driven suicide.

We could generalize the assertion to any suicide regardless of the mobile but this particular case makes it evident that either the Ego can be superseeded by external factors (which contradicts the initial assumption) or it does not exist at all.

This problem is also solved if we assume that the “I” is not the Ego nor anything perishable, which leads to another proposition I made before when I defined consciousness as not a thing but an operation in a crystaline immutable Universe. And this one can be proven in agreement with BOTH cartesian dualism and nondual propositions.

When I am runnning in the woods I have no idea about for how long I have been on it, or what distance.

I am not after a goal.

I am the goal. And I am in motion.

If we only started existing at some point in time, and if nothing spawns out of nothing, then we are all that exists since we were “created” and moreover, nothing was added from ourselves to it since.

Therefore, there is no ontological division on anything that exists.

While we are unable to describe the 3-dimensional physics of gravity we are obliged to accept the possibility of a 4th dimension of space in which our familiar 3D referencial is accelerated from the bodies’ centers of mass outwards. That would be the true gravitational acceleration, from which gravity would be a consequence and a manifestation.

This is necessarily a spatial dimension because there is a motion in that dimension, which we cannot perceive merely because our 3D referencial is invariant to it. We are in permanent motion relative to that 4th dimension.

It could also be logical to place other gravitational effects on 3D bodies in that fourth dimension, which would then be the dimension of existence of what we call dark matter.

In fact, when we say that matter distorts space, because we measure it as invariant, we know that this distortion does not affect the geometry of 3D space. Therefore we are in reality stating the existence of a fourth dimension of space. If the shortest path between two points in space is not a line, while we can still follow a 3D measured line, then that curvature only happens in a fourth dimension.

A straight line in a sheet of paper is invariant to distortions of that sheet beause its the whole sheet that is being distorted, making the 2D geometry invariant under any measurement carried in 2 dimensions. Its when we introduce a 3rd dimension that we can distort the plane while maintaining its intrinsic geometry intact. The same applies to the distortion of 3D space from which gravity is an effect. That distortion, translated to 3D measurements (the only ones we can carry out and explain) is an acceleration.

Another way to put this is that classical physics (and simple mathematics) can still explain gravity.

Time is isomorphic to a geometry when the measured process develops in space.

The assertions made in this post can be followed further in their implications.

Because the future structure already exists and because the past structure still exists, and since neither ever were pre-determined, it follows that every possible configuration exists at the same time.

Even if there were strict determinism, the structure would still be immutable.

That is, the Universe is perfectly static. Not a single breeze whispers in the Universe. Nothing new ever comes to being [2].

In fact, this principle manifests itself in the recesses of our very own reasoning. Nothing new can be deduced from previous assumptions and logical operations, that wasn’t manifested by those before.

It is therefore our conscience that moves in the Universe, or relative to the Universe [1].

The Universe is deterministic in that structural sense, but not our experience.

_______

[1] Conscience, as stated elsewhere, is a motion in the Universe. And as also stated before, in one of its variations, we are not a thing, not an object, but an operation. This operation was also before identified as an inversion.

[2] In particular, nothing new can be derived from the separation of a single thing and this is is accordance with nondualistic metaphysics.

[3] from what Sabine Hossenfelder explains here about the nature of light in the context of the space-time continuum, and based on my previous assertions on the subject, we can conclude that light is not in motion, it is our conscience that is in motion instead, and light is the only direct perception we can have about the structure of the Universe. That is, light is the most real approximation we are able to perceive about the structure of the Universe. We are in motion relative to light, its not light that is in motion; light is stationary in the sense that it is part of the structure of the Universe, a time-invariant structure, in fact, a time-less structure (hence light itself is not in motion). Another implication is that while we aproach the speed of light, we are in absolute terms (from the PoV of the Universe) slowing down to zero.