What is the Origin of Everything?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pelastration
Nothingness creates mass and energy.
This can be realized by a special , very simple, manifold.
Manifold = restructered nothingness.
Diversity comes with subquential similar manifolds or their inter-combinations.
Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundry (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)

Your using a word that has no meaning: "Nothingness". "Nothingness" implies an essence of that which isn't anything. However, that which isn't anything has no essence, because essence is something.

 

[nevagil]

nothin strings gravity etc

I think we should admit the explanations come from somewhere we don't have a chance of seeing, hearing or probably thinking about.
Its like a fish in water can't learn much about outside of water like Mars, Venus, Pluto, etc.. We can't come close to understanding valid questions that cannot have logical answers, like "What did existence come from?", or "Whats at the end of the Universe?".

Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. Example, if I lie on my back and hold something above my stomach, when I let go it drops, even if I build a cement floor under me. I realize that I and the cement floor have a tiny bit of gravity but it doesn't seem logical that the gravity goes thru us and maybe gains more strength. We add to it, yet not block it.
Anyway, my thought is if gravity etc can go thru us and cause things to happen, then maybe something we don't know of might go thru "nothingness" and cause something to happen. Afterall, doesn't gravity go thru parts of space that have nothing there (I'm assuming parts of outer space is a vacuum or is it always nitrogen, hydrogen or something? Maybe our universe appears to expand sometimes because something is doing some gravity affect on it from a far away place with a lot of "nothing" in between it and our universe.

Therefore existence may have appeared out of nothing because other things far away affect it(the nothing). Maybe in the nothing there was gravity and things from somewhere else or not somewhere else.


Gilnv of www.surrealcity.com

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by nevagil
I think we should admit the explanations come from somewhere we don't have a chance of seeing, hearing or probably thinking about.
Its like a fish in water can't learn much about outside of water like Mars, Venus, Pluto, etc.. We can't come close to understanding valid questions that cannot have logical answers, like "What did existence come from?", or "Whats at the end of the Universe?".

Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. Example, if I lie on my back and hold something above my stomach, when I let go it drops, even if I build a cement floor under me. I realize that I and the cement floor have a tiny bit of gravity but it doesn't seem logical that the gravity goes thru us and maybe gains more strength. We add to it, yet not block it.
Anyway, my thought is if gravity etc can go thru us and cause things to happen, then maybe something we don't know of might go thru "nothingness" and cause something to happen. Afterall, doesn't gravity go thru parts of space that have nothing there (I'm assuming parts of outer space is a vacuum or is it always nitrogen, hydrogen or something? Maybe our universe appears to expand sometimes because something is doing some gravity affect on it from a far away place with a lot of "nothing" in between it and our universe.

Therefore existence may have appeared out of nothing because other things far away affect it(the nothing). Maybe in the nothing there was gravity and things from somewhere else or not somewhere else.


Gilnv of www.surrealcity.com

You use "nothing" in a way that contrasts its definition.
Nothing is absence of anything. The "Nothingness" does not exist.

The voids between galaxies and galaxie clusters contain atoms (like Hydrogen) in very small quantities (perhaps 1 atom H2 per m3 or less), they contain photons from star light, they contain the gravity field, cosmic rays, and virtual particles (quantum effects).

In physics there at no place and no time there can be nothing due to the laws of Quantum Mechanics.

 

[nevagil]

re, re, re nothing

___________________________________________
You use "nothing" in a way that contrasts its definition.
Nothing is absence of anything. The "Nothingness" does not exist.

The voids between galaxies and galaxie clusters contain atoms (like Hydrogen) in very small quantities (perhaps 1 atom H2 per m3 or less), they contain photons from star light, they contain the gravity field, cosmic rays, and virtual particles (quantum effects).

In physics there at no place and no time there can be nothing due to the laws of Quantum Mechanics.
_____________________________________________________

Thanks for the info, I was curious and now I can reform some of my theories and thoughts.
Now for a first thought I'll say that the photons and gravity out there was maybe nothing because it is so far away that the gravity was barely anything and the photons may be non-existent befor the big bang (no stars then?)
The cosmic rays and virtual particles are beyond my present knowledge since its been 14 yrs since my yr of physics. You'll have to take it from there.
But for the sake of stubborn argueing I meant "nothing" in the way that most humans mean "nothing". "Nothing" means nothing that we know about or comprehend, I guess even a vacuum is something, its a vaccuum.

When you say in physics there can be no "nothing" does that mean befor the big bang also or is the big bang considered impossible now?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Also, consider negative energy. In a vacuum/void, there is no positive energy but there is negative energy. AND there's also dark matter...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by nevagil
Thanks for the info, I was curious and now I can reform some of my theories and thoughts. Now for a first thought I'll say that the photons and gravity out there was maybe nothing because it is so far away that the gravity was barely anything and the photons may be non-existent befor the big bang (no stars then?)
The cosmic rays and virtual particles are beyond my present knowledge since its been 14 yrs since my yr of physics. You'll have to take it from there.
But for the sake of stubborn argueing I meant "nothing" in the way that most humans mean "nothing". "Nothing" means nothing that we know about or comprehend, I guess even a vacuum is something, its a vaccuum.

When you say in physics there can be no "nothing" does that mean befor the big bang also or is the big bang considered impossible now?

Nothing means that there isn't anything existing. So whatever you think that can or might exist, is absent in a plain nothing. Thereofore the "nothing" does not exist, it is just a concept which is usefull sometimes.

The laws of physics, esp. quantum physics, tell us that nowhere space can be completely devoid of anything material. We can at least not find a factual clue with certainty that any volume of space contains no matter (particles, energy, fields) at all, cause that would beat the Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg. This states that we can not observe with absolute certainty both the place and momentum of anything material. It's only applicable to the quantum world. But it also means that one cannot find with absolute certainty that a certain place is completely devoid of anything material.

The Big Bang is not considered impossible, but the theory is still incomplete and not consistent. But whatever the theory of what "caused" the Big Bang, evolves into, we will always have a contradiction regarding the existing world, which we cannot get around. For a deeper discussion about this issue, read for instannce the tread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=958" which discusses a deep rooted contradiction in the nature of space and time itself. The contradiction is that both the beginning of time, and the opposite (infinite time), can be proven, but have their own problems, which are not solvable. Any way of removing the contradiction will raise more profound and even more absurd contradictions.

If you are saying that because of the insolvability of this contradiction the world itself is impossible, because it contradicts itself, you may say so. Yet it is a clear fact that the world DOES exist, including you, and that is just a fact of life.

 

[pelastration]

Hi ... back on line.
(I was looking into some Hinduism ... related to pelastration ... found some interesting things on Brahman and Atman, and MAYA)

Now on the discussion on "nothingness, nothing, ..." I thing it's more semantics. If you prefer "emptiness" its fine to me.

This is what Michio Kaku wrote in HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey: Chapter: What Happened Before the Big Bang? :" ... The 10 dimensional superstring theory ... the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty."

So that's Michio Kaku talking = "nothing in it ... empty".

Nevagil said: "Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. ".

Indeed that's my point. Everything is connected. When you start just with an incredible flexible and unbreakable membrane that penetrates itself you create a double layered new area. So simple! When you would look to it from a distance you see two layers (= darker) on the area that is penetrated. It becomes more visual!. It's a new dimension. The crazy thing is that it will have still the same content. And even stranger: it is still has the same outside membrane, but infolded in "apparently" independent (isolated) structures with other properties.
Let's say this happens thousand times. Now when you tear at one piece ... ALL OTHER will move also! Just like the gravity works.
This logic shows that the basic membrane in EVERYWHERE. That means that (what we call) gravity is structurally embedded it every element of the universe.

To Wuliheron: Yes I think that pelastration gives predictions. I am just looking for a mathematically skilled person who wants to spend some hours to calculate the basic formula. (Later that formula will have a number of variable parameters such as the impact radius, tension, impact angle, number of layers, ... ).
With that formula you will be able to analyze all actual other theories and I am sure a lot will be confirmed. But I am also sure (I feel it intuitively) that based on the speed of light it will be possible to calculate the basic stretchability of the membrane. ;-).

Finally it will be clear that everything is the membrane itself (because it creates just boxes). With the empty boxes we build houses (which we call Matter). That emptiness is called in Hinduism: Maya, the Illusion. We (made of boxes ourselves) will "see" other boxes but they are just reshaped membrane.

The interior of the tubes is always the same original tube: that's the ATMAN (one of the mysteries of Hinduism)

Whoow. ;-)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Hi ... back on line.
(I was looking into some Hinduism ... related to pelastration ... found some interesting things on Brahman and Atman, and MAYA)

Now on the discussion on "nothingness, nothing, ..." I thing it's more semantics. If you prefer "emptiness" its fine to me.

This is what Michio Kaku wrote in HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey: Chapter: What Happened Before the Big Bang? :" ... The 10 dimensional superstring theory ... the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty."

So that's Michio Kaku talking = "nothing in it ... empty".

Nevagil said: "Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. ".

Indeed that's my point. Everything is connected. When you start just with an incredible flexible and unbreakable membrane that penetrates itself you create a double layered new area. So simple! When you would look to it from a distance you see two layers (= darker) on the area that is penetrated. It becomes more visual!. It's a new dimension. The crazy thing is that it will have still the same content. And even stranger: it is still has the same outside membrane, but infolded in "apparently" independent (isolated) structures with other properties.
Let's say this happens thousand times. Now when you tear at one piece ... ALL OTHER will move also! Just like the gravity works.
This logic shows that the basic membrane in EVERYWHERE. That means that (what we call) gravity is structurally embedded it every element of the universe.

To Wuliheron: Yes I think that pelastration gives predictions. I am just looking for a mathematically skilled person who wants to spend some hours to calculate the basic formula. (Later that formula will have a number of variable parameters such as the impact radius, tension, impact angle, number of layers, ... ).
With that formula you will be able to analyze all actual other theories and I am sure a lot will be confirmed. But I am also sure (I feel it intuitively) that based on the speed of light it will be possible to calculate the basic stretchability of the membrane. ;-).

Finally it will be clear that everything is the membrane itself (because it creates just boxes). With the empty boxes we build houses (which we call Matter). That emptiness is called in Hinduism: Maya, the Illusion. We (made of boxes ourselves) will "see" other boxes but they are just reshaped membrane.

The interior of the tubes is always the same original tube: that's the ATMAN (one of the mysteries of Hinduism)

Whoow. ;-)

I would state that if it were not for matter and motion, neither space nor time would exist. Matter and motion are insperable; space and time are "modes of existence" of matter.

So, I would not think a 10-D space or even 3-D space would exist with nothing in there.
(Super)string and brane physics are just a mathematical toy tool, but as far as now they really explain nothing about physical nature itself. There is still a huge gap between theory and experiment/observation. Not likely to be bridged soon.

The pelestration idea, basically a brane that consists of some form of material substance, well what can I say? It seems more of an idea then a real physical theory, if you ask me. The point to be made is that from such a model to actually fit reality, there need to be calculable results that can be experirimentally testified, and the theory should bring forward clear predictions that can be tested.
If not... well then it is just another idea out of many.

 

[wuliheron]

The interior of the tubes is always the same original tube: that's the ATMAN (one of the mysteries of Hinduism)

Whoow. ;-)

If you need any help just ask. I'm a Philosophical Taoist myself, but I have studied the philosophical implications of religion and spirituality a fair amount. The Hindu faith has been studied extensively over the last century by theologians precisely because it does appear to answer all possible theological questions with its paradoxically imminent yet transcendent perspective.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If you need any help just ask. I'm a Philosophical Taoist myself, but I have studied the philosophical implications of religion and spirituality a fair amount. The Hindu faith has been studied extensively over the last century by theologians precisely because it does appear to answer all possible theological questions with its paradoxically imminent yet transcendent perspective.

Thanks for offering.
Without pushing yet on a possible TOE concept I see pelastration as an energetic presentation that unpuzzles a number of semantic paradoxes (no only in Hinduism).
When you read - with the P-manifold idea in mind - some texts they make sense in a new way:

The Lord on account of Maya is perceived as manifold - Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II-v 19

Gita, Ch. 7, Verse 4.
"I am endowed with two Shaktis, namely the superior and the inferior natures; the field and its knower (spirit is the knower of the field; matter is the field.) I unite these two".

Gita,Ch.13, verse 26.
"Wherever a being is born, whether unmoving or moving, know thou Arjuna, that it is from the union between the field and the knower of the field".
(Purusha is the knower of the field; Prakriti is the field; Shiva is another name for the knower of the field and Shakti is the field; Spirit is another name for the knower of the field and Matter (Prakriti) is the field).

 

[M. Gaspar]

If someone were to say...

..."I only buy blue cars" ... would it make any sense at all to ask "and how did you like the red ones you purchased"?

If the Universe is "eternal" then it makes no sense to ask "what happened BEFORE"...just as, if the Universe is defined as Everything That Is, there can be no "other" universes because "they" would be a part of the "Big One."

In my estimation, the Universe doesn't arise from a "void"...it arrises from ITSELF...over and over again.

Perhaps the word "membrane" refers to the force(s) that hold Everything together...and/or that which comprises the "stuff" that interconnects Everything. It seems an extraneous term...but I don't have all the info to assess it.

As to "the field and its knower": this fits into MY speculations thusly:

At the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe (ie, at each "Big Bang") there is a Primary Will: to have an Experience (a real COMPLEX one!). It is the WIll or INTENTION of the Universe -- as well as the Will/Intention of all of Its parts, including us -- that EFFECTS the ENERGY of the Universe, condensing some of that energy into "matter" as a natural function.

The Will of the Universe might be called the "knower" and the energy could be called the "field" upon which It acts.

And, as gravity seems to be "imbedded" in all "matter"...so may CONSCIOUSNESS, too...and, in fact, might be a better candidate then "membrane" to describe the interconnecting medium.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by pelastration


Indeed that's my point. Everything is connected. When you start just with an incredible flexible and unbreakable membrane that penetrates itself you create a double layered new area.

If the sum of the qualitative values in each element in the Universe is Ø and the Universe is the collection of all elements which are capable of having equivalent countervalent properties, then YES - everything IS connected by the value of Zero. I have no problem with that.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
..."I only buy blue cars" ... would it make any sense at all to ask "and how did you like the red ones you purchased"?

Of course it would make sense if I had painted those red cars first blue and sold them to him then only blue cars .
Remember: you like the (re)incarnation idea.
Repainting: restructering

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

As to "the field and its knower": this fits into MY speculations thusly:

At the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe (ie, at each "Big Bang") there is a Primary Will: to have an Experience (a real COMPLEX one!). It is the WIll or INTENTION of the Universe -- as well as the Will/Intention of all of Its parts, including us -- that EFFECTS the ENERGY of the Universe, condensing some of that energy into "matter" as a natural function.

The Will of the Universe might be called the "knower" and the energy could be called the "field" upon which It acts.

And, as gravity seems to be "imbedded" in all "matter"...so may CONSCIOUSNESS, too...and, in fact, might be a better candidate then "membrane" to describe the interconnecting medium.

A membrane is more concrete as a concept and offers mathematical steps. The tube I can calculate and bend. Quiet difficult with Consciousness.

 

[pelastration]

A membrane is more concrete as a concept and offers mathematical steps. The tube I can calculate and bend.

And the membrane is the isolating system which keeps the dimensions (layers) separate after the pelastration, but it also the jointing force between them.

Thus like us: Spirit and body jointed. After death (depelastration) : separation

 

[M. Gaspar]

Touche' Pelastration...!

...about the cars.

Regarding consciousness: are there not some aspects of science that cannot be detected or measured but are "known" only by their EFFECT?

How might one set up an experiment to detect the effect of consciousness? Or of intention (will) ?

And how might math be used?

I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an incomplete theory.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...about the cars.

Regarding consciousness: are there not some aspects of science that cannot be detected or measured but are "known" only by their EFFECT?

How might one set up an experiment to detect the effect of consciousness? Or of intention (will) ?

And how might math be used?

I believe that any theory of cosmology that does not include the nature and evolution of consciousness is an incomplete theory.

Agree completely, but consciousness is part of the whole pelastration. Here we enter in the resonance. If your tube (unity Gaspar = body + spirit + basic tube) is layered then when something happens in the outer tubelayer (body) also vibrations will go on the other layers (think at sleeve on your arm). In meditation people try to hear the sound of the silence (meaning the vibrations of the most inner tube = god).

Our braincells works with microtubules (Penrose-hammeroff). I am working on that.
But here is some darft work:
the explanation of quantum consciousness in the brain seems an interesting job (check: http://glendhu.com/ai/bluesky/quantumconsciousness.html). Quote: " "Quantum state reduction" is the term used to describe what happens when you try to measure the state or the location of a very small particle. It seems that it is the actual act of measuring which determines where the particle is, this is known as the "collapse of the wave function". Objects remain in wave-like quantum superposition until observed by a conscious human being - consciousness causes collapse of the wave function. Thus consciousness and reality seem to be fundamentally intertwined. "

De-Pelastration of that superposition will open that brain worm gate = energy back in normal position.

Penrose-Hameroff believe that consciousness is associates with cytoskeletal (walking) microtubule proteins within neurons of the brain. (tubes!)

In a post on Mkaku forums I posted:

"I believe that - like in the Morphic theory (Ruppert Sheldrake)- knowledge is spreading in a collective way (over distance without material transfer). Think about archetypes and collective unconsciousness (CG Jung). Pelastration now explains those also.
If my approach is correct it will show that our universe is in fact a giant Fedex/DHL/TNT package delivery service system (sending box-in-box-in-box-in-box-in-box packages and box+box+box packages, on receipt taking out one box and forwarding the rest to another recipient who adds another bibibibi box and takes out a box of the first, repacks all in a larger package and resends that to another ..., ... till the 'final recipient" has enough (quantum) boxes to built his temporal house. Although all boxes are empty ... a house is made ;-).
Empty boxes are the building stones of the Universe ... Logic?"

So Gaspar I am working on it.
Matter? It's all a matter of perception."

 

[wuliheron]

Thanks for offering.
Without pushing yet on a possible TOE concept I see pelastration as an energetic presentation that unpuzzles a number of semantic paradoxes (no only in Hinduism).

Yes, the Taoist equivalent was dubbed, "Energetic Taoism" by Huston Smith. It is also similar to the early Greek philosophy of Heraclitus. What they all have in common is an emphasis on Pantheism or, in western terms, materialism or dynamicism. This does not deny the possibly of Panenthistic implications, but declares the Pantheistic ones are the most easily descerned and meaningful in our personal everyday lives.

Gita, Ch. 7, Verse 4.
"I am endowed with two Shaktis, namely the superior and the inferior natures; the field and its knower (spirit is the knower of the field; matter is the field.) I unite these two".

This is an affirmation of duality as well as monodaism, both of which are very Pantheistic concepts.

Gita,Ch.13, verse 26.
"Wherever a being is born, whether unmoving or moving, know thou Arjuna, that it is from the union between the field and the knower of the field".
(Purusha is the knower of the field; Prakriti is the field; Shiva is another name for the knower of the field and Shakti is the field; Spirit is another name for the knower of the field and Matter (Prakriti) is the field).

This demonstrates the great strength of Hinduism from my point of view. The Hindu faith far outstrips all others in the shear amount of theological writings on the subject. If you have anything philosophical, theological, or scientific you care to develop on the subject, the Hindu faith has something poinent and meaningful to say about the issue.

In general, Asian thought can be divided into three catagories along the lines of paradox. Taoism presents the most mystical elegant and purely descriptive view, Buddhism presents the most Pantheistic and readily adaptable, and Hinduism presents the most detailed and broadly applicable with its Panenthism. Thus each presents its own strengths and weaknesses.

In the case of Taoism it's strength is its directness and its weakness is its difficulty in putting this to practical use on a large scale. For Buddhism, its strength lies in its adaptability and its weakness is in its absolutism. For Panentheism like the Hindu faith, its strength is in its diversity and its weakness in its lack of elegance.

 

[M. Gaspar]

You said the magic name, Pelastration...

...when you mentioned Rupert Sheldrake. I just recently bought Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness which he authored with two others...but haven't opened it yet.

The first time I heard of Sheldrake was when he was part of a PBS special...when I was FLOORED to hear him say something ASTONISHING!

It appears he had reached a conclusion that I had reached myself, quite independently. And that is: STARS ARE CONSCIOUS!

I wonder what your take on that is. Very tubular, no doubt.

Meanwhile, I'm printing out this page of this thread to process contents offline.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by pelastration
Hi ... back on line.
(I was looking into some Hinduism ... related to pelastration ... found some interesting things on Brahman and Atman, and MAYA)

Now on the discussion on "nothingness, nothing, ..." I thing it's more semantics. If you prefer "emptiness" its fine to me.

This is what Michio Kaku wrote in HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey: Chapter: What Happened Before the Big Bang? :" ... The 10 dimensional superstring theory ... the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty."

So that's Michio Kaku talking = "nothing in it ... empty".

Nevagil said: "Maybe strings and things like gravity are part of nothing, really. I still am amazed at how gravity seems to go thru things and then affect stuff on the other side. ".

Indeed that's my point. Everything is connected. When you start just with an incredible flexible and unbreakable membrane that penetrates itself you create a double layered new area. So simple! When you would look to it from a distance you see two layers (= darker) on the area that is penetrated. It becomes more visual!. It's a new dimension. The crazy thing is that it will have still the same content. And even stranger: it is still has the same outside membrane, but infolded in "apparently" independent (isolated) structures with other properties.
Let's say this happens thousand times. Now when you tear at one piece ... ALL OTHER will move also! Just like the gravity works.
This logic shows that the basic membrane in EVERYWHERE. That means that (what we call) gravity is structurally embedded it every element of the universe.

To Wuliheron: Yes I think that pelastration gives predictions. I am just looking for a mathematically skilled person who wants to spend some hours to calculate the basic formula. (Later that formula will have a number of variable parameters such as the impact radius, tension, impact angle, number of layers, ... ).
With that formula you will be able to analyze all actual other theories and I am sure a lot will be confirmed. But I am also sure (I feel it intuitively) that based on the speed of light it will be possible to calculate the basic stretchability of the membrane. ;-).

Finally it will be clear that everything is the membrane itself (because it creates just boxes). With the empty boxes we build houses (which we call Matter). That emptiness is called in Hinduism: Maya, the Illusion. We (made of boxes ourselves) will "see" other boxes but they are just reshaped membrane.

The interior of the tubes is always the same original tube: that's the ATMAN (one of the mysteries of Hinduism)

Whoow. ;-)

Well, if you are stating that everything came from emptiness, then that is a perfectly fine opinion. However, the word "nothing" is to be treated/used with care.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, if you are stating that everything came from emptiness, then that is a perfectly fine opinion. However, the word "nothing" is to be treated/used with care.

This reminds me of an interesting feature of inflation theory, which is basically is established around one (or more) scalar fields in space and time, that are nothing more then assigning a "value" to every point of space, which can fluctuate due to quantum effects.
The fact is there really isn't anything there in space/time, besides of this fields, and if all values at a certain moment in time would state a value of 0, this would be exactly the concept of "emptiness".
The value is arbitrary, in that there is no absolute 0. Same like an electric field potential. The toal value of the electric field potential in the whole of the universe is assumed to be 0 Volt, yet this could be as well be 110 Volts, or any other value, we could not detect that.

Another nice feature of this dynamic scalar field changing in time that it shows a good example of the dialectical law of "Quantity into Quality", because solely on the basis of the quantum effected change in the value of this scalar field, a transformation is possible that creates a new quality: the occurence of inflation, which expands space and creates a new space-time bubble, forming a new universe.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
It appears he had reached a conclusion that I had reached myself, quite independently. And that is: STARS ARE CONSCIOUS!

Hmmm. Well then we can ask the stars perhaps some day how to solve the energy crisis.

But seriously, it is a rather vague stand to say that stars are "consciousness".

Let me try to explain what I mean here, it has to do with formal reasoning.

Suppose we define a certain property or quality, and name that Q. Now we can only know if anything has "Q-ness" on the basis that we can distinguish it from things that don't have "Q-ness".
But suppose we would state that everything has "Q-ness". How could we then distringuish this property, or even proof it is existent?
The anwer is: we can't.

Consciousness is reserved for living organisms, until now only discoverd on the planet earth, and only for a few living species.
This property of living organisms, must be derived from something, of course. If we disassmble conscious beings, we will find different layers of organic material, and finally we will just find electrons, protons, neutrons, and the things they are made of.
Where does this quality of consciousness derive from? In the electron, the proton, the neutron? If we adopt a thinking in which we say that the quality of consciousness in a being, must be inheretly present in the components of it, then we are faced with a problem. Because either we have to claim that all dead matter has consciousness too, or we would have to claim that consciousness as such is inexistent.
Of course, this is not the case. Matter has the potential to form structures that in their ensembled form have the property or quality of consciousness, but this does not mean that in their components, this quality is also present. Like for instance a single neuron is not consciousness, although it's the basic component of a material brain.

So if we claim a star to be consciousness, why wouldn't this allow us for anything else to be called consciousness? And the soon as we do that, the next argument is that nothing is consciousness, cause we could not establish any distinction then.

Same reasoning as that dark exists, because light exists. etc.

You have to ask yourself, what property is it that makes a "thing" consciousness? What kind of behaviour can stars establish, that would make you think so?

I would not limit consciousness to a couple of species on earth, it is certainly arguable that consciousness is universal, and other forms of life on other planets, could be consciousness too.

But dead objects, like the Earth (excluding it's life inhabitants) or the sun or galaxy, don't have consciousness. They just form a very sophistocated system, enabling life forms, and are pre-conditions to life forms and living matter, and also consciousness.

 

[nevagil]

nothing +something = big universe

Maybe there is nothing with intermittent connectivity (pelastration may term it vibration), maybe one day a week a photon goes thru it.
Out in faraway space where starlight(photons) and gravity are weak or intermittent, and we look inbetween the h2 things, there may be spots of nothing. Especially if there may have been explosions creating different structures of molecules or whatever, like no more h2.

Just picture the edge of our universe and then go out far enough so that gravity is weak and photons are weak (because our universe has a limited amount of stuff its gravity and photons can only reach so far with any significance, in it there should be a spot out there that is usually empty, a square mile of nothing or at least a square centimeter).
Take that "nothing" on a day, let's say Tuesday, and have something from our universe reach it and something from another universe reach it and a collision results creating a new source of gravity, universe etc.
It seems possible to me that a big bang could occur out of "nothing" with the help of universes or stuff outside the nothing.

To define "nothing" or "emptyness" a bit more I'd like to say that "nothing" if next to "something" should show a osmosis affect in that stuff should flow into it if gravity, membrane, and structure permit it. Then it would also be "something" but not its own universe, it would have joined the universe that reached it and certainly it would no longer be "nothing".


This idea of "intermittent nothing" could fit into a re-incarnating universe, it might disperse into other universes thus dying and become "nothing" again.
So those of you that feel there can't be "nothingness" do you think there can be "intermittent nothingness"? Can there be a temporary "nothing" like near a black hole?
Btw, if there is a temporary "nothingness" then it did occupy space and time without having matter or motion.

gilnv of www.surrealcity.com

 

[M. Gaspar]

Heusdens...

I am going to take the next six hours to formulate my response to your last posting. I even took the time to look up the word "formulate" so that now I must say that I mean to "express in systematic terms or concepts" rather than "devise or invent"...'tho you might feel the latter is the case.

First, I want to say that I appreciate your thoughtful response to my alignment with Rupert Sheldrake that "stars are conscious". I want to emphasize the word "thoughtful" because I did not detect a tone of derision even as you proceded to "pluck my feathers".

Let's look at the "material world": according to my rather tenuous understanding of what has been proposed by recent cosmologists ('tho I understand there are other theories afoot)...

...the "beginning" of the Universe was the event we have called the "Big Bang".

...while we "don't know" what happened during the "first second" after the Big Bang, we "know" about what happened after the "second second"! (I'm speaking figuratively here with regard to actual time frame.)

...what happened in the second second was that the "singularity" that was, at the time, Everything That Is, spread itself out in a very thin "soup" of elementary particles.

...those elementary particles, in some form or another, were somehow "contained" within the singularity.

Now, before I go too far (say, into the "third second"), let us establish that "matter" has been established as "bound-up energy." Might we not be able to say, then, that "matter" is a "state of energy"? Or even, energy itself? Then, would not EVERYTHING BE ENERGY? (I know you'll tell me ).

...thus, the singularity is ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME...

...just as in its present state as the expanding Universe, it is ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME.

...thus, each elementary particle was/is actually a form of energy.

...that "materialized" out of "virtuality"...just as elementary particles do all the time out of the "energy rich" "vacuum".

Then, at a certain point, the neonatal Universe "cooled" (I believe) to a point where elementary particles joined together (through natural processes, I would assume) to form dynamic little systems called "atoms"...and photons were "released".

So, although atoms SEEM like "matter", they are actually energetic systems of energy, gathered together as a natural function of natural forces.

If the Universe is "truly" all energy, then might not CONSCIOUSNESS be a form of energy, too? And might it not, like "matter", have been "blown apart" at the moment of the "Big Bang" into "elementary particles of consciousness"?

And might it not, through natural forces, ACCRETE like "matter" to form dynamic coherent systems?

"Matter" is "here" because somewhere in that singularity there existed the ingredients and forces to make it so.

The stuff of consciousness, then, might have been a part of the singularity...perhaps existing in every "morsal" of energy, meaning every quantum of energy that became every elementary particle, that joined together to form "communities" of physicality and consciousness.

Matter continued to accrete. Consciousness continued to accrete.

I am going to end this posting here (tho I have a lot more to say) because I fear being disconnected and losing all this good stuff.

 

[M. Gaspar]

So, Heusdens...

...you consider the dynamic and coherent energetic system that we call an "atom" DEAD!

In fact, all this DEAD STUFF remains dead to you (and your brainy brethren) until it combines itself with exquisite complexity into even LARGER dynamic and coherent energetic systems that walk and talk. Short of that, any other dynamic and coherent energetic systems are likewise DEAD.

So Goodbye Gaia...your DEAD IN THE WATER! Oh, sure, you are infested with some walkers and talkers who exchange energy with other coherent energy systems, and sure, you regulate your own temperature, and sure, you have a dynamic core that generates energy that, among other things, deflects (and draws in) certain energies from the GREAT BIG DEAD THING IN THE SKY...but don't go thinking you're a "living organism". And never, NEVER "think" you can, well, THINK!

And you, Ra...or Sun...or whatever the heck the walkers and talkers call you...don't YOU go getting delusions of grandeur.

You're a medium-size star. That's it. You do what stars do. Nothing more. Sure, you "got lucky" and are "hosting" one lousy planet with "life"...but don't "think" that you can exchange steady streams of consciousness back and forth because consciousness is "confined" to the walkers and talkers "down there" and, most of all, you can't THINK...remember?!

Look, Heusdens...I need now to do some research to see how Sheldrake came to HIS conclusion. As background on Sheldrake, I will say that he obtained his PhD. in biochemisry from Cambridge in 1967. He also studied philosophy at Harvard. This, of course, does not preclude his being a crackpot. And don't think it hasn't crossed my mind that I might be one, too.

I'll be back with whatever case he makes.

Meanwhile, let us remember that this thread is about "Everything from Nothing" and I'm maintaining that Everything is from SOMETHING.

And, when I finally learn how to "capture" these postings, I'm going to copy THIS and my prior posting on this thread to the thread "Is the Universe Conscious"...unless you would be so kind to do it for me.

This is such fun.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...you consider the dynamic and coherent energetic system that we call an "atom" DEAD!

Yes, of course. What is your problem? I never killed a single atom, I swear! (lol)

But your post contains no reasoned assumption of why we should call an atom not dead, and why large complex organic organisms, like a fish, are not dead. Well, all what we can state that all the properties of a fish as a system, are ultimately derived from the properties of atoms.
The conclusion, you implictly make that because a fish is a living thing (at some time it certainly is or was) does not mean that therefore all the components are life too.

Because as you see between the living fish and the lowest levels of matter, there are several and numerous layers of systems, that have different properties then the ones below. The higher levels ultimately depend on the lower levels, but new properties can arise out of ensembling lower levels to higher structures.

And to put some reason in my arguments. What distinguishes 'dead' matter from 'living' matter? It is difficult to say exactly where the boundaries are, but one of the chief capabilities of living matter is that it is able (because of the DNA) to re-produce. And this property can arise only when we ensemble enough molecules of the right stuff together, to create that property of matter.

Same as the property of walking comes from having 2 (or 4 or more) legs, and not from just one (exception is the snake/snail, but this one could not call 'walking').

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by heusdens
It is difficult to say exactly where the boundaries are, but one of the chief capabilities of living matter is that it is able (because of the DNA) to re-produce.

Crystals grow. Is that re-production? Not really, it more like available empty electro-magnetic spaces which will collect relevant atoms.

Possible entry:
Consciousness: next to individual you have also collective.
Think how the first cells started. = joined actions -> specialization (Symbiotics) caused by extreme surrounding situation.
Condition: inter-communication between the parts.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Crystals grow. Is that re-production? Not really, it more like available empty electro-magnetic spaces which will collect relevant atoms.

Re-production is not the only criteria for life. All living organism have a metabolism too, they take food from the surrounding environment.

 

[pelastration]

Of course.

It was no critic ... just stating that also non living things grow ... but I added immediatelly that the growth of crystals is not real reproduction.

To check your statement that living organism have metabolism too ... I am going to take a beer now.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Heusdens...

I would have preferred a reply to the posting PRIOR to the one about "living" or "dead" dynamic and coherent systems...tho I will be back to discuss these distinctions, too.

My interest has more to do with consciousness, and I'm interested in your thoughts regarding my contention that, perhaps, consciousness was part of the singularity that burst forth in what we call the "Big Bang"...especially the idea that there may be "elementary particles of consciousness"...or, perhpas, consciousness "in" elementary particles.

Might these "particles of consciousness" accrete like "matter" does via gravity, via a corresponding (tho unnamed as yet) force?

Why is this premise fundamentally wrong...aside from the fact that I can't "prove" it.

Would not such a symmetry between the natural processes of physicality and consciousness be, at the very least, beautiful...and might it not explain the interconnectedness of all things?

I have a few feathers left, so...pluck on!

P.S.

I want to send these (my) postings to the "A Conscious Universe?" thread. Is this possible?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
Of course.

It was no critic ... just stating that also non living things grow ... but I added immediatelly that the growth of crystals is not real reproduction.

To check your statement that living organism have metabolism too ... I am going to take a beer now.

I must admit a proper definition of "life" in a way slipped out of my mind, so I am not exactly sure about it either...

Enjoy your beer!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I would have preferred a reply to the posting PRIOR to the one about "living" or "dead" dynamic and coherent systems...tho I will be back to discuss these distinctions, too.

My interest has more to do with consciousness, and I'm interested in your thoughts regarding my contention that, perhaps, consciousness was part of the singularity that burst forth in what we call the "Big Bang"...especially the idea that there may be "elementary particles of consciousness"...or, perhpas, consciousness "in" elementary particles.

Might these "particles of consciousness" accrete like "matter" does via gravity, via a corresponding (tho unnamed as yet) force?

Why is this premise fundamentally wrong...aside from the fact that I can't "prove" it.

Would not such a symmetry between the natural processes of physicality and consciousness be, at the very least, beautiful...and might it not explain the interconnectedness of all things?

I have a few feathers left, so...pluck on!

That is a matter of taste, if you like such an idea.

But there are more ways to express the interconnectedness of "all things"!

From philospohical viewpoint, I would say that this makes no sense.
Your position is lended on the fact that you are inclined to think that since our material brain has consciousness, so also matter itself must have that quality.

That is in fact as to say that also one molecule of air is able of producing hurricanes. It's the way thinks work as an ensemble of things, that provides such properties of course.

Or take another example. When looking at a painting, you might discover the property "beauty" in it. But where does this property come from? The molecules in the paint?

P.S.

I want to send these (my) postings to the "A Conscious Universe?" thread. Is this possible? [/b

Is this a question to me?

You can insert either a link in that thread to this thread, or copy/past it in there.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
That is a matter of taste, if you like such an idea.

But there are more ways to express the interconnectedness of "all things"!

From philospohical viewpoint, I would say that this makes no sense.
Your position is lended on the fact that you are inclined to think that since our material brain has consciousness, so also matter itself must have that quality.

That is in fact as to say that also one molecule of air is able of producing hurricanes. It's the way thinks work as an ensemble of things, that provides such properties of course.

Or take another example. When looking at a painting, you might discover the property "beauty" in it. But where does this property come from? The molecules in the paint?



"Matter" is "constructed" of atoms which are "constructed" of elementary particles (which are "constructed" of...?), etc. In other words, the "building blocks of matter" EXISTED in the Universe...having "come out of", presumably, the "Primal Sigularity".

Matter didn't come from nothing. It came from whatever was "contained" in the "Primal Singularity" which, in turn, "condensed out" (of WHAT?) pretty quickly after the "Big Bang".

I speculate that CONSCIOUSNESS was there, also, condensed down -- like everything else from the PRIOR INCARNATION of the UNIVERSE -- into the "Primal Singularity". When the Singularity "blew"...consciousness "fragmented" too...and has spent these subsequent eons to coallesce, once again, via processes as natural as gravity and its effect on matter.

Matter accretes. Consciousness accretes.

Matter comes from something. Consciousness comes from something. The Universe comes from something, too: Itself!

MY RESPONSE TO YOU, HEUSDENS. starts after you "molecules of paint (I'm having a tough time figuring out how to effectively use the quote capturing feature...maybe someday):

By the way, the "beauty of the painting" is not a characteristic of anything...it's a PERCEPTION/INTERPRETATION by an OBSERVER.

 

[pelastration]

The relativity of observer and observation

Gaspar and Heusdens

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
... the idea that there may be "elementary particles of consciousness"...or, perhpas, consciousness "in" elementary particles.
Might these "particles of consciousness" accrete like "matter" does via gravity, via a corresponding (tho unnamed as yet) force?
Would not such a symmetry between the natural processes of physicality and consciousness be, at the very least, beautiful...and might it not explain the interconnectedness of all things?

Originally posted by heusdens
That is a matter of taste, if you like such an idea.
But there are more ways to express the interconnectedness of "all things"!
Your position is lended on the fact that you are inclined to think that since our material brain has consciousness, so also matter itself must have that quality.
That is in fact as to say that also one molecule of air is able of producing hurricanes. It's the way thinks work as an ensemble of things, that provides such properties of course.
Or take another example. When looking at a painting, you might discover the property "beauty" in it. But where does this property come from? The molecules in the paint?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

"Matter" is "constructed" of atoms which are "constructed" of elementary particles (which are "constructed" of...?), etc. In other words, the "building blocks of matter" EXISTED in the Universe...having "come out of", presumably, the "Primal Sigularity".
Matter didn't come from nothing. It came from whatever was "contained" in the "Primal Singularity" which, in turn, "condensed out" (of WHAT?) pretty quickly after the "Big Bang".
I speculate that CONSCIOUSNESS was there, also, condensed down -- like everything else from the PRIOR INCARNATION of the UNIVERSE -- into the "Primal Singularity". When the Singularity "blew"...consciousness "fragmented" too...and has spent these subsequent eons to coallesce, once again, via processes as natural as gravity and its effect on matter.
Matter accretes. Consciousness accretes.
Matter comes from something. Consciousness comes from something. The Universe comes from something, too: Itself!
MY RESPONSE TO YOU, HEUSDENS. starts after you "molecules of paint (I'm having a tough time figuring out how to effectively use the quote capturing feature...maybe someday):
By the way, the "beauty of the painting" is not a characteristic of anything...it's a PERCEPTION/INTERPRETATION by an OBSERVER.

Essential in this discussion: the Relativity of the Observer. Depending from his POSITION in the matter/spiritual level his surrounding (his world of reality) contains other parameters which seems to be important. This gives a level of OVERVIEW. If you have no overview the surrounding becomes paradoxical. (Cfr. the QM explanation of the quantum leap = the search for overview).

The separation of "matter" and "spiritual" is only the description of two other layers of interconnectedness.
Example: A sheep, milk, skin, hair, and ...
The sheep is the isolated unity on our 3D world of animals. (knowledge level)
But "MY" sheep is called Bonny = specific unity in my garden. (personal daily level)
The sheep has a skin, if we transform it, it becomes LEATHER. We can make shoes of it.
The sheep has Hair, if we transform it, it becomes WOOL.

For the observing farmer the sheep has another direct 'signification' then for the observing manufacture of shoes. Without the existence of sheeps the shoe manufacturer could not make sheep-shoes.

LEVEL of consciousness: So the manufacture and the farmer are conscious about the various possibility the sheep and his related sub-elements have in THEIR WORLD. But the sheep has a LOWER level of consciousness. When it sees the (fancy sheep-leather made) shoes of the farmer it will have no degree of consciousness that those might made out of sheep leather. The sheep just wants food, water, some sex, housing to protect itself against the rain, sun and ... the big bad wolf.
A painting of sheeps has only (artistic) SIGNIFICATION for humans because the higher level gives OVERVIEW.
So: the the Relativity of the Observer.

In the same way the separation of matter and spiritual is artificial. There is an hierarchy of manifestations of interconnectedness. You know my vision of manifolded intertwining by pelastration: these create such layering and interconnectivity. This hierarchy is related to Einstein's gravitational ether (which he searched for his last 30 years but never found) showing that kinetics are the base of such hierarchy. (http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology/einstein.html )
Einstein needed a valid kinetic mechanism next to TIME (and space-time) in his formula to position "separate" time-relatities. The pelastration mechanism provides this image. So we can finally rewrite the original formula Einstein had in mind.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Pelestration...

Something to think about...thanks.

Meanwhile, you remind me of a phrase from an article I read a long time ago about a man sitting on his living room floor, with instructions in his hand and the components of his new stereo system (or whatever) strewn about him.

The article said that he was looking at all this stuff "with no more comprehension than shrimp examining a nuclear submarine".


I still get a laugh from that one.


But is the laugh on ME?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"Matter" is "constructed" of atoms which are "constructed" of elementary particles (which are "constructed" of...?), etc. In other words, the "building blocks of matter" EXISTED in the Universe...having "come out of", presumably, the "Primal Sigularity".

Matter didn't come from nothing. It came from whatever was "contained" in the "Primal Singularity" which, in turn, "condensed out" (of WHAT?) pretty quickly after the "Big Bang".

I speculate that CONSCIOUSNESS was there, also, condensed down -- like everything else from the PRIOR INCARNATION of the UNIVERSE -- into the "Primal Singularity". When the Singularity "blew"...consciousness "fragmented" too...and has spent these subsequent eons to coallesce, once again, via processes as natural as gravity and its effect on matter.

Matter accretes. Consciousness accretes.

Matter comes from something. Consciousness comes from something. The Universe comes from something, too: Itself!

MY RESPONSE TO YOU, HEUSDENS. starts after you "molecules of paint (I'm having a tough time figuring out how to effectively use the quote capturing feature...maybe someday):

By the way, the "beauty of the painting" is not a characteristic of anything...it's a PERCEPTION/INTERPRETATION by an OBSERVER.

Matter in the philosophical meaning is not just particles, but any form of matter (energy, fields). Matter is not created or destroyed, so there was always matter, in whatever form.
(for explaining the big bang, one could think of the idea of eternal inflation).

Consciousness has arisen out of the material world, in the form of living organisms, due to the evolution of life forms in billions of years.

This quality of matter was not orginally there!

For further explenation of Matter, Materialism, Dialectics, Dialectical Materialism: see the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1496"