What is the Origin of Everything?

[M. Gaspar]

"The quality of consciousness was not already there" is an assumption and nothing more.

I may not be able to empiracly "prove" that consciousness exists in Everything, but nor can you "prove" that it does NOT.

On the other hand, with a little time and thought -- and the "functional resistence" of countervaling views -- I will make my case to (at the very least) my OWN satisfaction.

Meanwhile...lunch.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"The quality of consciousness was not already there" is an assumption and nothing more.

I may not be able to empiracly "prove" that consciousness exists in Everything, but nor can you "prove" that it does NOT.

Yeah. And in the same way one can claim that the molecules of the air in themselves hide the property of hurricanes, and that molecules of paint hide in themselves the property of beauty...Neither this can be disproven, but it contains just absolute nonsense.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"The quality of consciousness was not already there" is an assumption and nothing more.

I may not be able to empiracly "prove" that consciousness exists in Everything, but nor can you "prove" that it does NOT.

True, but it does seem to make sense (to me at least) that something that is conscious will show itself to be so. A rock never gives any hint of how conscious it is.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Non sequiturs abound...

A hurricane is "made up of" molecules of air. This does not mean that each molecule of air "carries" the properties of a hurricane.

But one cannot deny that, in the ABSENSE of ANY molecule of air, a hurricane -- a dynamic coherent system itself (albeit temporary, which, in fact, ALL dynamic coherent systems are...except for maybe One: the ongoing Universe...but I digress) -- as I was saying, in the ABSENSE of ANY molecules of air, a hurricane would not come into being.

Without the tendency of the Universe to have "matter" "condense out of" energy -- wherein it (matter/energy) apparently exists in virtuality -- "materialists" would have nothing to look at, including THEMSELVES.

"Beauty" is a perception/interpretation (as I have said before) so does not parallel our "particles of consciousness" discussion.

The title of this thread is "Everything Came From Nothing" which I believe allows to me contend that "Everything Came from Something" and still be on point.

Now I'm wondering if it makes a difference to anyone to see consciousness as integral to the "mix". Putting it another way, how does it hurt to have people thinking that consciousness -- like Everything Else -- arose from Nothing?

Would the world be a better place if everyone believed that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts?

Or are we better off believing that the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE is ALL THERE IS...relegating consciousness to a fortunate accident within the accident of life?

Honestly, I don't know. The world -- and the many "geniuses" in it -- have believed worse rubbish then yours or mine...and the world has gotten along just fine. Or has it? [?]

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
A hurricane is "made up of" molecules of air. This does not mean that each molecule of air "carries" the properties of a hurricane.

But one cannot deny that, in the ABSENSE of ANY molecule of air, a hurricane -- a dynamic coherent system itself (albeit temporary, which, in fact, ALL dynamic coherent systems are...except for maybe One: the ongoing Universe...but I digress) -- as I was saying, in the ABSENSE of ANY molecules of air, a hurricane would not come into being.

To explain hurricanes, which is a high order phenomena, one can not take much explenation from properties of individual air molecules, so it's rather a useless interpreation to declare hurricanes as consisting of matter. Instead, hurricanes must be explained on the basis of air pressure, and heating of air due to sunlight, causing differences in air pressure, which forces the air to flow.
That hurricanes are ultimately existing in the form of patterns of moving air molecules is an obvious fact of course, but that fact does not explain us much.
When one would have never seen a hurricane, or any other weather phenomena, I hold it for impossible to figure out that air molecules can cause hurricanes. You have to take into consideration other factors here as just the air molecules themselves (for instance the heating of the Earth by the sun, is an important factor here; without it, no hurricanes would exist! you don't know that fact from just studying the properties of air molecules!).

In almost the same way, one cannot deal with explaining consciousness, just by decribing the chemical and physical compounds of our brain. You can make no relation to these two distinct things.
One has to explain consciousness by way of explaining the process that caused consciousness to form, which is in terms of evolution.

Without the tendency of the Universe to have "matter" "condense out of" energy -- wherein it (matter/energy) apparently exists in virtuality -- "materialists" would have nothing to look at, including THEMSELVES.

What is the "virtual existence" of matter? Are you referring to matter in the form of fields?

Please do not mix the physical meaning of matter (the baryonic stuff and leptons for instance) with the philosophical meaning of matter (which covers physical notions such as normal matter, energy, fields, etc.).

"Beauty" is a perception/interpretation (as I have said before) so does not parallel our "particles of consciousness" discussion.

In the same way portraying the universe as consciouss is a perception/interpretation!

The title of this thread is "Everything Came From Nothing" which I believe allows to me contend that "Everything Came from Something" and still be on point.

Now I'm wondering if it makes a difference to anyone to see consciousness as integral to the "mix". Putting it another way, how does it hurt to have people thinking that consciousness -- like Everything Else -- arose from Nothing?

Consciousness does not arise from nothing! It took more as 3 billions years to get us here our of mere organic macro molecules and the forces of nature!

Would the world be a better place if everyone believed that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts?

No, since that would portray a false picture of reality! First, fund out yourself how consciouess beings evolved in a process that lasted 3 billions years from very simple organic matter, then you get *some* idea of what consciousness is about!

Or are we better off believing that the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE is ALL THERE IS...relegating consciousness to a fortunate accident within the accident of life?

The physical universe is all there is but the physicallity is not all there is to the universe!

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
True, but it does seem to make sense (to me at least) that something that is conscious will show itself to be so. A rock never gives any hint of how conscious it is.

There are living things -- like roaches and dragonflies -- that give "hints" that they are conscious to rather high extent (for a bug). Let your own experience with them in the past (or next opportunity in the future) to see if you can "take the hint" that they are aware of us as (1) threats or (2)something of interest, respectively.

The fact that we can not detect consciousness in a rock does not mean that some level of it -- however simple -- might be there.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Heusdens...

There was a time when someone from the distant past conjectured that "matter" -- baryonic matter -- was made up of small "building blocks" called "atoms". He couldn't provit it. But he had deduced it and eventually...science caught up.

Much of what Einstein proposed had to wait a few years for observational or mathematical confirmation.

Yes, consciousness is to baryonic matter what air molecules are to a hurricane...with some important distinctions:

To the forming hurricane (and let us take "Will" out of the quation at the outset) molecules of air are "everywhere"...a resource to DRAW FROM. The dynamic coherent -- tho transient -- system that is the hurricane EMPLOYS air molecules to perform IN CONCERT the function of swirling around to regulate global temperatures.

Particles of consciousness might be "everywhere" too -- in baryonic matter...in "Dark Matter"...in photons of light!

However, particles of consciousness might not "cluster" as matter does, but "unite" or "cooperate" -- even at great distances -- with other particles of consciouesness to form a dynamic, non-physical NETWORK that, nonetheless, resides partially in the physical.

Thus, particles of consciousness are being USED by EACH OTHER for the the function of becoming AWARE.

Of course, there are probably different levels of consciousness, with awareness of "self" the most basic. Perhaps on one end of the consciousness spectrum there is an awareness of that which is WITHIN "self" and at the other end of the spectrum is an awareness of that is is OUTSIDE "self". I'm shooting from the hip on this paragraph, because I haven't given the "continuum" enough thought.

More on next posting...

 

[M. Gaspar]

Give me air...

Each molecule of air, no doubt , has a consciousness of its own but probably its NETWORK does not allow for a level of consciousness that would allow the molecule of aire to "think about" the leaves it is passing in its flight.

MY consciousness is more "hooked-up" than that of an air molecule, meaning MINE has more "sites" ...which allows me to have more "sights" ...as well as INsights!

The evolution of sentient life on this planet does not PRECLUDE my speculations. What I am speaking of, in fact, is "simply" another avenue of EVOLUTION: the functional accretion of consciousness which, like matter, didn't come from nothin'.

If energy evolves into matter and matter evolves into life...AND, if consciousness evolves (out of the fragmented bits of the former "whole" imbedded in the "Primary Singularity") into coherent systems of thought...wouldn't that be an example of SYMMETRY at its best?!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
There was a time when someone from the distant past conjectured that "matter" -- baryonic matter -- was made up of small "building blocks" called "atoms". He couldn't provit it. But he had deduced it and eventually...science caught up.

Much of what Einstein proposed had to wait a few years for observational or mathematical confirmation.

Yes, consciousness is to baryonic matter what air molecules are to a hurricane...with some important distinctions:

To the forming hurricane (and let us take "Will" out of the quation at the outset) molecules of air are "everywhere"...a resource to DRAW FROM. The dynamic coherent -- tho transient -- system that is the hurricane EMPLOYS air molecules to perform IN CONCERT the function of swirling around to regulate global temperatures.

Particles of consciousness might be "everywhere" too -- in baryonic matter...in "Dark Matter"...in photons of light!

However, particles of consciousness might not "cluster" as matter does, but "unite" or "cooperate" -- even at great distances -- with other particles of consciouesness to form a dynamic, non-physical NETWORK that, nonetheless, resides partially in the physical.

Thus, particles of consciousness are being USED by EACH OTHER for the the function of becoming AWARE.

Of course, there are probably different levels of consciousness, with awareness of "self" the most basic. Perhaps on one end of the consciousness spectrum there is an awareness of that which is WITHIN "self" and at the other end of the spectrum is an awareness of that is is OUTSIDE "self". I'm shooting from the hip on this paragraph, because I haven't given the "continuum" enough thought.

More on next posting...

PROVIDING that you have CONSCIOUSNESS, all I can tell you is that you will never find PARTICLES of CONSCIOUSNESS, because all I can make of this post is that you haven't the slightets idea what CONSCIOUSNESS in fact IS.

One of it is that CONSCIOUSNESS is not MATTER, and that MATTER is not CONSCIOUSNESS. Same as WEATHER is not AIR MOLECULES and AIR MOLECULES ain't WEATHER.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Each molecule of air, no doubt , has a consciousness of its own but probably its NETWORK does not allow for a level of consciousness that would allow the molecule of aire to "think about" the leaves it is passing in its flight.

MY consciousness is more "hooked-up" than that of an air molecule, meaning MINE has more "sites" ...which allows me to have more "sights" ...as well as INsights!

The evolution of sentient life on this planet does not PRECLUDE my speculations. What I am speaking of, in fact, is "simply" another avenue of EVOLUTION: the functional accretion of consciousness which, like matter, didn't come from nothin'.

If energy evolves into matter and matter evolves into life...AND, if consciousness evolves (out of the fragmented bits of the former "whole" imbedded in the "Primary Singularity") into coherent systems of thought...wouldn't that be an example of SYMMETRY at its best?!

Do you really hold it that a molecule of air has consciousness of it's own? I don't know what your definition of consciousness is then, but it certainly ain't mine.
All one can state is that a molecule or any other form of matter has the property of interacting. If matter would not interact, we would not even know it is there, so that is the basic property of matter. But interacting does not require consciousness, because it is mechanical.

So try again, and use a more sensible definition of consciousness.

 

[M. Gaspar]

And I say that YOU don't know what Consciousness is.

For instance -- and now I will quote Rupert Sheldrake because he puts it forth so well:

"Right from the beginning, since my Book A NEw Science of Life was published, my aim has been to try to find a wider picture or paradigm for science that is not constricted to an inanimate, mechanistic view of things. One approach to this "bigger picture" is the idea of the whole universe as a living organism. The big bang theory describes the orgigin of the universe as a small undifferentiated, primal unity. The universe then expands and grows, and new forms and structures appear within it. THIS IS MORE LIKE A DEVELOPING ORGANISM THAN LIKE A MACHINE (my caps). The old idea of the Earth as dead has given way to Gaia, the idea of the lving earth...So, if the universe is like a great organism, then everything within it is best understood as organisms rather than machines."


Let me add here that I came to his conclusion by myself -- not having read anything by him until a week ago.

Sure, there's room on this planet for more than one crackpot...and more than one REACTIONARY , too!

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

M.Gaspar:
First of all, the quote is insufficiently substantiated. Take for example the geological evolution of the planet earth. It, like the universe evolved, developed. The universe is only developing through a series of random chain reactions, with no apperent purpose/goal. Whereas, in organisms, there is a purpose.

 

[M. Gaspar]

MV...

I was recently chided for not recognizing the distinction between purpose (which implies "will") and function (which does not).

While I could make a case that includes "purpose" for the evolution of the cosmos -- including this planet and its inhabitants -- I can also make a case for functionality only...especially with regards to the evolution of the living organisms that are accepted as such.

There are some who conjecture that the element of "randomness" is simply part of the overall SYSTEM of the Universe...there at the juncture between "reality" and "virtuality". It is thought, by such persons, that INTENTION (a product of consciousness) is that which ACTS UPON the lynchpin of randomness...bring certain possibilities into existence and not others.

What might look to be a "random chain of events" may, in fact, be the manifestation of potentiality into reality driven by intention.

Certain things can only be "evidenced" by their "effect" rather than measured, or even detected? What might be a good experiment to "prove" the effect of intention on randomness.

And what might "prove" the Universe is conscious?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

GOOD JOB! Excellent argument!

A highly complex series of algorithmic actions created by the universe could possibly not be random. We have seen that there are laws which govern the universe, and these laws are standard.

But none the less, the question remains: What is the meaning of existence, as a living being?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I was recently chided for not recognizing the distinction between purpose (which implies "will") and function (which does not).

While I could make a case that includes "purpose" for the evolution of the cosmos -- including this planet and its inhabitants -- I can also make a case for functionality only...especially with regards to the evolution of the living organisms that are accepted as such.

There are some who conjecture that the element of "randomness" is simply part of the overall SYSTEM of the Universe...there at the juncture between "reality" and "virtuality". It is thought, by such persons, that INTENTION (a product of consciousness) is that which ACTS UPON the lynchpin of randomness...bring certain possibilities into existence and not others.

What might look to be a "random chain of events" may, in fact, be the manifestation of potentiality into reality driven by intention.

Certain things can only be "evidenced" by their "effect" rather than measured, or even detected? What might be a good experiment to "prove" the effect of intention on randomness.

And what might "prove" the Universe is conscious?

Let us investigate this from another viewpoint. What is the purpose of claiming that the Universe is consciouss?

Let me argue from the perspective this has no purpose.

When we denote some property which we can meaningfully attribute to something, this can only have meaning because we can detect 'things' that have that property and distinguish it from everything else that does not have that property. If however we assert that everything has that property, then this is the same as stating that nothing has this property, cause we cannot give any detection mechanism to distinguish things with that property and things without. In other words, the property itself becomes meaningless then. There is only dark, because there is light. etc.

Now, the current assumption is that we call that what the universe is material, because it allows us to distinguish our consciousness from that. Even when we are in large part material, in some part we are not, cause we are consciousness.

If, however, we would claim that if we are conscious then also the universe is conscious, then this statement has the same truth value as saying that since the universe is material, also we are material, and nothing more.

Which would then be the very end of us, reflecting on ourselves as conscious beings. For what purpose?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Even when we are in large part material, in some part we are not, cause we are consciousness.

We are a result of consciousness, are we not? Consciousness=awareness.
So "we are awareness" is incorrect. We are a result of it.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
We are a result of consciousness, are we not? Consciousness=awareness. So "we are awareness" is incorrect. We are a result of it.

I don't get this, but probably you mean that our consciousness is a result of awareness. That is not entirely true, cause there is also consciousness of which we are not aware, which is therefore entitled subconsciousness.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
We are a result of consciousness, are we not? Consciousness=awareness.
So "we are awareness" is incorrect. We are a result of it.

We are most definitely not a result of consciousness. If we didn't exist, then we wouldn't be conscious, but we could still exist, and not be conscious.

It is not that we are awareness, it is that we are aware.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't get this, but probably you mean that our consciousness is a result of awareness. That is not entirely true, cause there is also consciousness of which we are not aware, which is therefore entitled subconsciousness.

Heusdens, you are using the word "subconscious" inappropriately here. "Subconsciousness" the state of anything that is not conscious. A rock is subconscious. Reactions that require no conscious thought are subconscious.

Also, I think you may be wrong in distinguishing between awareness and consciousness. They are (AFAIK) synonymous.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Mentat
We are most definitely not a result of consciousness. If we didn't exist, then we wouldn't be conscious, but we could still exist, and not be conscious.

It is not that we are awareness, it is that we are aware.

Yes, you're right. But I was only referring to living things.

what does this have to do with how everything came from nothing? (this sounds more like "is the universe conscious?")

 

[von_Bismarck]

'Subconscious' refers to mental activity (esp. in humans) which is below the threshold of ordinary consciousness, but which still exists. Those objects which don't possesses consciousness (such as rocks) are 'unconscious', or more simply, 'not conscious'.

 

[Another God]

I am amazed at how long this thread has gone on, considering its origins.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Heusdens, you are using the word "subconscious" inappropriately here. "Subconsciousness" the state of anything that is not conscious. A rock is subconscious. Reactions that require no conscious thought are subconscious.

Also, I think you may be wrong in distinguishing between awareness and consciousness. They are (AFAIK) synonymous.

No. You mean unconscious, which means lack of consciousness.
Subconscious doesn't mean unconscious, it means things (thoughts, memories) one is not conscious of, but still have been brought into memory, and can be brought to awareness again.
Part of behavious is also subconscious, like auto-relfexes and so.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by heusdens
No. You mean unconscious, which means lack of consciousness.
Subconscious doesn't mean unconscious, it means things (thoughts, memories) one is not conscious of, but still have been brought into memory, and can be brought to awareness again.
Part of behavious is also subconscious, like auto-relfexes and so.

Not just memory. Quite simply, consciousness is a state of awareness[of one's surroundings]. Subconsciousness is the state of "non awareness".

 

[heusdens]

Hegel on Being and Nothing

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_82"

part of this text:

A Being
§ 132

Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.

B Nothing
§ 133

Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete emptiness, absence of all determination and content — undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has, therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.®

C Becoming
1. Unity of Being and Nothing
§ 134

Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being — does not pass over but has passed over — into nothing, and nothing into being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself. ®

Remark 1: The Opposition of Being and Nothing in Ordinary Thinking

Remark 2: Defectiveness of the Expression 'Unity, Identity of Being and Nothing'

Remark 3: The Isolating of These Abstractions

Remark 4: Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

Highlighted phrase/conclusion:

. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.

 

[heusdens]

Incomprehensibility of the Beginning

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htm#HL1_103"

§ 170

What has been said indicates the nature of the dialectic against the beginning of the world and also its end, by which the eternity of matter was supposed to be proved, that is, the dialectic against becoming, coming-to-be or ceasing-to-be, in general. The Kantian antinomy relative to the finitude or infinity of the world in space and time will be considered more closely under the Notion of quantitative infinity. This simple, ordinary dialectic rests on holding fast to the opposition of being and nothing. It is proved in the following manner that a beginning of the world, or of anything, is impossible:

§ 171

It is impossible for anything to begin, either in so far as it is, or in so far as it is not; for in so far as it is, it is not just beginning, and in so far as it is not, then also it does not begin. If the world, or anything, is supposed to have begun, then it must have begun in nothing, but in nothing — or nothing — is no beginning; for a beginning includes within itself a being, but nothing does not contain any being. Nothing is only nothing. In a ground, a cause, and so on, if nothing is so determined, there is contained an affirmation, a being. For the same reason, too, something cannot cease to be; for then being would have to contain nothing, but being is only being, not the contrary of itself.

§ 172

It is obvious that in this proof nothing is brought forward against becoming, or beginning and ceasing, against this unity of being and nothing, except an assertoric denial of them and an ascription of truth to being and nothing, each in separation from the other. Nevertheless this dialectic is at least more consistent than ordinary reflective thought which accepts as perfect truth that being and nothing only are in separation from each other, yet on the other hand acknowledges beginning and ceasing to be equally genuine determinations; but in these it does in fact assume the unseparatedness of being and nothing.

§ 173

With the absolute separateness of being from nothing presupposed, then of course — as we so often hear — beginning or becoming is something incomprehensible; for a presupposition is made which annuls the beginning or the becoming which yet is again admitted, and this contradiction thus posed and at the same time made impossible of solution, is called incomprehensible.

§ 174

The foregoing dialectic is the same, too, as that which understanding employs the notion of infinitesimal magnitudes, given by higher analysis. A more detailed treatment of this notion will be given later. These magnitudes have been defined as such that they are in their vanishing, not before their vanishing, for then they are finite magnitudes, or after their vanishing, for then they are nothing. Against this pre notion it is objected and reiterated that such magnitudes are either something or nothing; that there is no intermediate state between being and non-being ('state' is here an unsuitable, barbarous expression). Here too, the absolute separation of being and nothing is assumed. But against this it has been shown that being and nothing are, in fact, the same, or to use the same language as that just quoted, that there is nothing which is not an intermediate state between being and nothing. It is to the adoption of the said determination, which understanding opposes, that mathematics owes its most brilliant successes.

§ 175

This style of reasoning which makes and clings to the false presupposition of the absolute separateness of being and non-being is to be named not dialectic but sophistry. For sophistry is an argument proceeding from a baseless presupposition which is uncritically and unthinkingly adopted; but we call dialectic the higher movement of reason in which such seemingly utterly separate terms pass over into each other spontaneously, through that which they are, a movement in which the presupposition sublates itself. It is the dialectical immanent nature of being and nothing themselves to manifest their unity, that is, becoming, as their truth.

 

[string_theory]

Everything came from nothing...
God created everything. that is the ultimate solution to this difficult question...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by string_theory
Everything came from nothing...
God created everything. that is the ultimate solution to this difficult question...

It can be argued that that statement does not in fact "solve" the issue, but only shifts the issue from the Natural world, to the phenomena of the being of God, and is therefore not much help.
Does it raise any understanding of Nature by declaring that it "came from God"?

While solving one mystery (where did Nature arise from) it creates another mystery (the mystery of God). The effect is nihil.

Understanding the world means to gain knowledge about the (Natural) world through research and exploration. God isn't much of an explorable entity, therefore we need to explore Nature instead, and try to make sense of it.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by heusdens
It can be argued that that statement does not in fact "solve" the issue, but only shifts the issue from the Natural world, to the phenomena of the being of God, and is therefore not much help.
Does it raise any understanding of Nature by declaring that it "came from God"?

While solving one mystery (where did Nature arise from) it creates another mystery (the mystery of God). The effect is nihil.

Understanding the world means to gain knowledge about the (Natural) world through research and exploration. God isn't much of an explorable entity, therefore we need to explore Nature instead, and try to make sense of it.

Here's what will "solve the issue": eliminating the extraneous element of "God" and seeing the UNIVERSE Itself as a living Entity that is PART of the "natural world"...evolving by changing Its form(s) and assembling Its consciousness.

Wouldn't this "raise our understanding of Nature"? if it were true? And eliminate "the mystery of God" to boot!

 

[l'Anvers]

Everything comes from nothing, you say...

But what if nothing never was? Everything comes from one point in the universe, since it exploded x years ago. There is no proof that before that, there was nothing. It could be a pulsating universe that always has been. All comes from 1 (dimension) and 0 is a difficult number to create something with it.

If you say that first, there was nothing, how can nothing evolve in something? How to create with nothing? If you have no bricks to start with, how do you build a house?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by string_theory
Quantum physics is WRONG

Well, then why it (quantum physics) agrees with experiment to 12-13 digits accuracy? (and the accuracy is limited by errors of experiment, not by uncertainty of theory.)

Do you know any other theory being so accurate?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Do you know any other theory being so accurate?

Creationism?

(Hey Alexander, I wondered if you were ever coming back!)

 

[Alexander]

How accurate is creationizm, indeed? Any non-negative or non-zero number (of % match between theory and observation)? And if so, can creationizm approach (not to say beat) the accuracy of quantum physics?


{About coming back. I am quite lazy (may be that is why I like thinking?). So, after PF moved, I was unable to lift my b..., sorry, my fingers to retype basic info. Finally semester is now over and there are not much other excuses to continue to suffer from NHBS (natural heavy b... sindrome)}.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
How accurate is creationizm, indeed? Any non-negative or non-zero number (of % match between theory and observation)? And if so, can creationizm approach (not to say beat) the accuracy of quantum physics?

Good point, but you forgot Swami Zero's theorem which states any atom losing its electron can be positive about everything, including all secrets of creation. If you want to get up to speed on the NEW standards of reason at PF I suggest you study his thread on deepness.

Originally posted by Alexander
{About coming back. I am quite lazy (may be that is why I like thinking?). So, after PF moved, I was unable to lift my b..., sorry, my fingers to retype basic info. Finally semester is now over and there are not much other excuses to continue to suffer from NHBS (natural heavy b... sindrome)}.

Ah yes, the catatonic-finger-combined-with-NHB syndrome. But then you said "sin" drome -- a Freudian slip if I've ever heard one. It means you hate your mother (or something like that). I bet that's why you are a materialist too.

 

[pelastration]

Creation from 'nothing' is possible

Most of the threads on these forums are about the same question: the degree (or density) of existence (reality, consciousness, nothingness, God, paradoxes, truth,...), it's interrelationship(s). When you see the discussions from a distance you will see that we are trapped in semantic frames with paradoxical implications.

When we just use words we will not come out.

THE NEED FOR OVERVIEW

The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.
When we have such a mechanism then everyone can call that after his own believe system: GOD, Maya, nothingness, Logos, Jamjam, ...

Starting from pure logic - based on only one postulate (there is one unbreakable membrane) - such an mechanism can be imagined. This unbreakable membrane can manifold itself creating that way new layers which will separate (make isolated islands) but still will stay connected too to previous islands, and are still connected to the original starting 'something'. This means that the 'form' which contains 'essential movement' creates diversity.

DUALISM

This universal manifold (probably described by alpha: coupling constant) will create already on the second level the separation between basic ENERGY (3+) and basic MATTER (3-), which are in fact differently layered. From there the combinations are higher than traditional squared or factored.

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposing views like Materialism and Idealism. The various explanations or interpretations of the paradoxical Origin brought humanity : religious fanatics, Inquisition(s), wars and (auto) believes in superior races ('chosen' by GOD). So it's time to de-mystify!

From the monkey view we see 'islands of reality'.
We live on such an island. (this is my Universe).
Our body is such an island. (this is my Island ... this is my realtity! I am the best ...).
But from the Eye of Ra we will say: an island is just an PART of the Earth surface (that is higher than the other surrounding Earth surface) that is surrounded by water. And we can see that all islands are connected by Earth but on another level separated by water.

LIFE.

The further this process of division (by adding new layers) goes the more complexity starts and conditions for 'life' appear on their level(s). Level dependent self-organizing will create collective and individual consciousness on several relevant levels.

This means also that spiritual energies (as emanations/infolding) of the basic energy (3+) has degrees of (relative) independence, which explain the possibilities in connectivity in consciousness systems.

Humans are thus each an individual universe with billions of combinations of internal isolated islands (fundamental particles which are 'boxed' in atoms, atoms which are 'boxed' in molecules, molecules which are 'boxed' in DNA, ... finally creating Jim, Alan, Mary, ...; but on down-levels they still are connected on common (collective) starting islands.
Inside they are still connected with the original movement, and internally there is still the original membrane between each layer.

The paradox of life (the connection of a physical body with spiritual body) can be analyzed and solved in the same way. The connection (starting life) happens with tiny white holes and de-connection (death) with tiny black holes.

MEMBRANE is GRAVITATION.

Trapped inside the human monkey view is the idea of gravitation. What we call gravity (fundamental connectivity) is only the result of the infolded membrane in every fundamental particle, subsequential atom, subsequential molecule, ...

The question of God or reality, existence, ... is thus the ability to see with the Eye of Ra. ;-)

If you want to see a solution on the fundamental Paradox click on below image.