What is the Origin of Everything?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eyesee
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical concept that everything originated from nothing, positing that nothing is the only state that does not require a cause. Participants engage in a debate over the semantics of "nothing" and its implications for understanding existence. One argument suggests that the question of origin can lead to infinite regress unless one accepts nothing as the ultimate source. Critics argue that defining nothing as a cause contradicts its very nature as the absence of anything. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities and paradoxes inherent in discussing the origins of existence.
  • #151
Life is a condition, something temporary. Existence is not. When you die, the cosmic dust which comprises your body will continue to exist. And so will you - the thing inside which compiled and compells it - you will BE dead...but you will BE.

More of the same rhetorical nonsense, "you will BE dead...but you will BE". Also more contradictory nonsense. This is what you said before:

Existence is not a 'state'. It is being, itself.
It is not a condition or a state of being.

Conditions or states of being are precipitated by processes.
Existence is not a process.

Again, to say existence is not a state, process, or condition is to deny the dictionary definition of the word as is to say it is not life. The "cosmic dust" that makes up my body is not eternal either and is precipitated by processes.

Logic is derived from the laws of nature. The laws of nature are derived from the properties of all which exists. Existence is the very foundation of logic.

Existence encompasses more than logic and the laws of nature, it encompasses everything including the irrational. Logic is based on faith that the irrational and absurd exist, on reductio ad absurdum. Hence you are saying nature is absurd and so is logic.

Ok - then what is YOUR definition

I accept the dictionary definition, but I would add to it that existence is demonstrably paradoxical, that is, it does not make rational sense.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Originally posted by Messiah
Existence is not a 'state'. It is being, itself.
It is not a condition or a state of being.

Conditions or states of being are precipitated by processes.
Existence is not a process.

See you tomorrow?? (I like the mental excercise)

Alright, I'm back.

First you say, "it (existence) is being".

Then you say, "it is not a state of being"

Is this not contradictory? Besides, you are just telling me what you don't think it is. You should try telling me what it is.
 
  • #153
Originally posted by Mentat
First you say, "it (existence) is being".

Then you say, "it is not a state of being"

Is this not contradictory? Besides, you are just telling me what you don't think it is.

Not contradictory.

Existences change in condition - position or configuration - and assume various 'states of being'.

In order for something to change or be changed it must exist. Change is a function of existence. I.e. - 'states of being' are derived from 'being', itself.

The two are obviously related, but very different - one is the derivative of the other.

You should try telling me what it is.
Def: EXISTENCE - To have a physical presence in the Universe
 
  • #154
Originally posted by Messiah
Not contradictory.

Existences change in condition - position or configuration - and assume various 'states of being'.

In order for something to change or be changed it must exist. Change is a function of existence. I.e. - 'states of being' are derived from 'being', itself.

The two are obviously related, but very different - one is the derivative of the other.


Def: EXISTENCE - To have a physical presence in the Universe

Oh, so concepts don't exist?

Read Wu Li's dictionary definition of "existence", in Heusden's thread - "Existence".
 
  • #155
Originally posted by Mentat
Oh, so concepts don't exist?

Read Wu Li's dictionary definition of "existence", in Heusden's thread - "Existence".

Certainly concepts exist. They are physically present in the Universe, represented by a change in condition of the element or entity which conceives the concept. Its 'being' is changed and that change is physical.

They are not separate 'entities', but they can be shared with other elements/entities by communicating with them.
 
  • #156
Originally posted by Messiah
Certainly concepts exist. They are physically present in the Universe, represented by a change in condition of the element or entity which conceives the concept. Its 'being' is changed and that change is physical.

They are not separate 'entities', but they can be shared with other elements/entities by communicating with them.

Concepts are not physically present. The change in my brain (that results in my having concieved of something) is physically present, but the concept itself is not.
 
  • #157
Originally posted by Mentat
Concepts are not physically present. The change in my brain (that results in my having concieved of something) is physically present, but the concept itself is not.


"Cogito ergo sum.". I think, therefore I am.

One must exist in order to experience, and the fact that you experience is convincing proof you exist.

It is not possible to ‘be’ more than - or less than - a single entity. Multiple entities cannot share a single identity any more than they can simultaneously occupy the same space. The domain of each element stops at the boundary where the domain of another begins.

If the body is a composite arrangement of cells, molecules and atoms which are comprised of elemental particles, and if you can only be a single existence, it must be logically concluded that you are an element of existence concealed within the assemblage of your body. Some call it a soul. Experiences are filtered through the body and the body amplifies the nature of its inhabitant. Yes, brains are an important feature. Our consciousness would be very different without them.

When you have a concept, your being (and, reflexively, your brain) physically changes. That is the physical representation wherein resides the 'concept'.
 
  • #158
Originally posted by Mentat
Oh, so concepts don't exist?

Of course concept exist, but they belong to another category of existence, that is dependend on the mind.

Look at it like this. We have a "real" flower. We can take a phot of it. Now we have a photograpic image of the flower. The image is not the real object, although it is a reality on it's own too, with different physical properties (f.i. it is 2-D and not 3-D, and it is made of paper and emulsion, not biological cells).

So, therefore we need two different and disinguishable sets or catagories of existence. The material existence itself, and the category of existence that depend on the mind.

We could argue that apart from these two categories of existence, there also needs to be a third one, that is defined as not being material existence, so not being physically there, and not being dependend on the mind.

It could be named the category of universals or truths. Like arithmetics. "Things" belong to this category, if they are not dependend on the mind, in other words, if all minds would cease to be, and reappear later in evolutionary history, the mind would "learn" or "discover" or "invent" these same truths.
 
Last edited:
  • #159
Originally posted by Messiah
It is not possible to ‘be’ more than - or less than - a single entity. Multiple entities cannot share a single identity any more than they can simultaneously occupy the same space. The domain of each element stops at the boundary where the domain of another begins.

What about the "split brain" syndrome? Is a person having a split brain/multiple personality, still one person? What do you call "entity" in this case. Each individual pesonality? Or each body.
It is one body, that in this cases has one or more minds, but not simputaniously. In the case of multiple personality, it might be the case each personality occupies it's own place in the brain.
 
  • #160
Originally posted by heusdens
What about the "split brain" syndrome? Is a person having a split brain/multiple personality, still one person? What do you call "entity" in this case. Each individual pesonality? Or each body.
It is one body, that in this cases has one or more minds, but not simputaniously. In the case of multiple personality, it might be the case each personality occupies it's own place in the brain.

The two 'multiple personality' disorders with which I am familiar are
1) Conversion hysteria - where an individual crawls into himself and puts up a facade personality to deal with a highly stressful situation. Often the facade personality will have full memory while it is engaged and the 'real' personality may hide painful memories so it does not have to deal with them.

2) Schitzophrenia - a chemical imbalance evidenced by delusion and hallucination. The individual seems to have more than one personality, but usually retains full memory. The problem of chemical balance ebbs and flows causing changes in behavior.

Yes, the body has a vast influence on the consciousness of the entity which wears it and consciousness may not be possible without the amplification and feedback of the body. But every particle in a body is an individual existence. The fact you experience is convincing proof you exist. You cannot be more than one existence; hence, the phenomenon of a soul or entity which 'wears the mud' is highly likely.
 
  • #161
Originally posted by heusdens
Of course concept exist, but they belong to another category of existence, that is dependend on the mind.

Look at it like this. We have a "real" flower. We can take a phot of it. Now we have a photograpic image of the flower. The image is not the real object, although it is a reality on it's own too, with different physical properties (f.i. it is 2-D and not 3-D, and it is made of paper and emulsion, not biological cells).

So, therefore we need two different and disinguishable sets or catagories of existence. The material existence itself, and the category of existence that depend on the mind.

We could argue that apart from these two categories of existence, there also needs to be a third one, that is defined as not being material existence, so not being physically there, and not being dependend on the mind.

It could be named the category of universals or truths. Like arithmetics. "Things" belong to this category, if they are not dependend on the mind, in other words, if all minds would cease to be, and reappear later in evolutionary history, the mind would "learn" or "discover" or "invent" these same truths.

But the photograph of the flower exists, and so does the concept of a flower, that you've caused me to produce in my mind.

The thing is that complex brains (which are physical parts of the universe) produce minds (which are "programs" that are run on the "brain computer"), which in turn produce concepts. So, while concepts are not physical, they exist, and can be traced back to physical origins.
 
  • #162
Originally posted by Mentat
But the photograph of the flower exists, and so does the concept of a flower, that you've caused me to produce in my mind.

The thing is that complex brains (which are physical parts of the universe) produce minds (which are "programs" that are run on the "brain computer"), which in turn produce concepts. So, while concepts are not physical, they exist, and can be traced back to physical origins.

When you talk about concepts not being physical, they exist, and can be traced back to physical origins What if i were to make up a concept in my mind that was not possible.. how can that be traced back to something physical? So you see the mind is capable of creating false realities which can decieve you if you let it. Man kind is the first of all beings on Earth to evolve a mind that is capable of percieving fiction from reality which explains why we dominate earth.

Everything that exists here has had to have been made before existence. The real question is what is before existence? Just remeber that everything that will ever happen has already happened in creation only to be discovered. This has to be given the fact that we are even able to speculate who are creator is and where life came from. The only purpose then of our existence according to the gods can be to see which order or patterns we will take on using what they have already created for us.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
everything is nothing

at first there was nothing. not even nothing. you see, nothing is a word. but the 'real' nothing is no word. instead, it was nothing at first. sick of being nothing, it forms to something. then eventually everything.

i am giving this all out to readers out there. you may choose this to be ridiculus. if you do, don't make unethicle comments to other peoples beliefs. instead, try to read it carefully and realize what we are trying to say. thank you.
 
  • #164
Everything that exists here has had to have been made before existence. The real question is what is before existence? Just remeber that everything that will ever happen has already happened in creation only to be discovered. This has to be given the fact that we are even able to speculate who are creator is and where life came from. The only purpose then of our existence according to the gods can be to see which order or patterns we will take on using what they have already created for us.
 
  • #165
Originally posted by Netme
Everything that exists here has had to have been made before existence. The real question is what is before existence?

Eveything that exists has only a temporal form or shape. Take for instance an apple. Now it is an apple. After some days, it will have changed, but still look an apple. In a couple of weeks, it has transformed completely, and ceased to be an apple.

Existence is in eternal change and motion.
The issue of "what came before existence" is unanswerable, or is better answered as "nothing".

(see also the thread: 'The Fundamental Question')
 
  • #166
Originally posted by heusdens
Eveything that exists has only a temporal form or shape. Take for instance an apple. Now it is an apple. After some days, it will have changed, but still look an apple. In a couple of weeks, it has transformed completely, and ceased to be an apple.

Existence is in eternal change and motion.
The issue of "what came before existence" is unanswerable, or is better answered as "nothing".

(see also the thread: 'The Fundamental Question')

Existence cannot change.. If something exists it can only change its physical or mental properties Either it exists or it does not exist. Whose to say that existence cannot exist within existence?And what came before our existence cannot be unanswerable seeing how we even exist at all. There must be a way to answer where we came from and by who. For example think about computers they function on operations that we have programed them to Our very existence is much like this except that we are the gods and computers our creation. Now if there was a way that computers could find out who we are we could use this to find out who our god is.
 
Last edited:
  • #167
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)
 
Last edited:
  • #168
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)

What is a "pelastration"?
 
  • #169
Pelastration: penetration + elastic + strada (layers).

Pelastration: penetration of an unbreakable (infinite elastic) tube through another unbreakbale (infinite elastic) tube, creating thus a new tube with two layers (dimension added).
This manifold has never been described and unknown in math.

More on http://www.hollywood.org/cosmology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #170
Originally posted by Netme
Existence cannot change..

Wrong. Existence IS change!

To exist, means to change/move/transform etc.

If something exists it can only change its physical or mental properties Either it exists or it does not exist. Whose to say that existence cannot exist within existence?And what came before our existence cannot be unanswerable seeing how we even exist at all. There must be a way to answer where we came from and by who. For example think about computers they function on operations that we have programed them to Our very existence is much like this except that we are the gods and computers our creation. Now if there was a way that computers could find out who we are we could use this to find out who our god is.

If you mean with "our existence" the present material forms as they have been shaped in the event of the Big Bang 9what exactly took place there, is still under investigation), there can be a reference to a "previous existence".

Note however that all forms of existence require change/motion and time and space. That is, there never was, has been or can be "unchanging existence" in whatever form.

Your ideas reflect the idea of an "embedded" existence, so as to say that this universe was formed in and from a broader/higher universe, and if so, how can we find out about that.

It's an intriguing question. I consider it however possible that the human mind is able to discover that.

And in fact it is the subject of investigation of present day cosmology, that investigates the issue of what caused and formed the present universe. Brane cosmology, supserstring theory, eternal inflation, to name some, are recent competing theories in this field.
 
Last edited:
  • #171
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)

I would not state that in an EXISTING universe, there can't be the possibility that energy and mass, that were not previously existent, were formed out of the previously existing universe, on the condition that it this universe contained CHANGE/MOTION, or in other words, if that universe had a MATERIAL FORM.

But THAT to me means that it (the universe existing in a state without mass or energy) is not NOTHINGNESS, cause a real NOTHINGNESS contains no such quality or possibility. In the first place because in a real nothingness no change whatsoever takes places, which excludes the possibility of anything to take place ever. And further because a real nothingness has no properties, has no boundary, etc.

There isn't a possibility for there to be really nothing, the universe could not have been or ever become in such a state, because the universe would forever (in a timeless manner) be in such a state.
Which is clearly not the case, and can thus be excluded as a possibility.
 
Last edited:
  • #172
My postulate was: "Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundary (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)".

So the nothingness I am referring is an area that is surrounded by the void and - implicit - it can be pushed by forces behind the void (like a balloon-membrane can be pushed by your fingers). Even if there is a non-active medium inside such balloon that medium will become active by these external vibrations. This description uses standard semantics.

The pelastration concept - this special space curvature - shows the creation of a new dimension. Still the content stays identical in the totality.

The nothingness can also be a local restructured part (island) of what is behind the Void.
The moment that the void pelastrates itself can be: the point of singularity.

Suddenly from the Void (Hyperspace) appears a NEW DIMENSION : the start of our Universe.

As Stephen Hawkins explained: 'Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers...there is a point in the universe where the general theory of relativity breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity... all our theories of science break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. One may say that Time had a beginning at the Big Bang'.

And since you probably started laughing about those crazy pelastrations, read this: Michio Kaku (see below more): "The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size."

In the pelastration concept the original structure splits in a basic passive part (receptive tube) and the pelastrating second part (impact tube) that becomes double layered. 10 = 6 + 4

This is like the paradox of self-fertilization in old myths, in the symbol of the Uroboros and the paradox of the Trinity in several religions. Without wanting to hurt religious feeling or vision of others: God is totality: there is only one. There is however also the trinity: the Father (still behind the Void - Six dimensions), the Son ( the local manifestation in other dimensions - the four dimensions), and the Holy Spirit (the way to realize this - the universal manifold).
Without the aid of anthropomorphism we can now see a creation process or mechanism in which such trinity makes sense also for non religious people.

The Pelastration concept gives probably for the first time a glimpse how this point of singularity started.

De-pelastration= when the impact redraws this acts like a block-hole (shrinking and increasing density) till it disappears in a funnel (Kaku: "One puzzle, however, is that, according to Einstein's equations, the funnel of a black hole necessarily connects our universe with a parallel universe. Furthermore, if the funnel connects our universe with itself, then we have a "worm hole"

Look now to the design of the pelastration: a black hole.

Interesting:
Michio Kaku ( HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey ) : What Happened Before the Big Bang?
"One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of "wormholes" and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The current expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe."

Pelastration is maybe a bizarro approach but Michio Kaku again: "Given the fruitless search that has stumped the world's Nobel Prize winners for half a century, most physicists agree that the Theory of Everything must be a radical departure from everything that has been tried before. For example, Niels Bohr, founder of the modern atomic theory, once listened to Wolf gang Pauli's explanation of his version of the unified field theory. In frustration, Bohr finally stood up and said, "We are all agreed that your theory is absolutely crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough."
 
  • #173
Originally posted by pelastration
My postulate was: "Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundary (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)".

So the nothingness I am referring is an area that is surrounded by the void and - implicit - it can be pushed by forces behind the void (like a balloon-membrane can be pushed by your fingers). Even if there is a non-active medium inside such balloon that medium will become active by these external vibrations. This description uses standard semantics.

The pelastration concept - this special space curvature - shows the creation of a new dimension. Still the content stays identical in the totality.

The nothingness can also be a local restructured part (island) of what is behind the Void.
The moment that the void pelastrates itself can be: the point of singularity.

Suddenly from the Void (Hyperspace) appears a NEW DIMENSION : the start of our Universe.

As Stephen Hawkins explained: 'Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers...there is a point in the universe where the general theory of relativity breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity... all our theories of science break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. One may say that Time had a beginning at the Big Bang'.

And since you probably started laughing about those crazy pelastrations, read this: Michio Kaku (see below more): "The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size."

In the pelastration concept the original structure splits in a basic passive part (receptive tube) and the pelastrating second part (impact tube) that becomes double layered. 10 = 6 + 4

This is like the paradox of self-fertilization in old myths, in the symbol of the Uroboros and the paradox of the Trinity in several religions. Without wanting to hurt religious feeling or vision of others: God is totality: there is only one. There is however also the trinity: the Father (still behind the Void - Six dimensions), the Son ( the local manifestation in other dimensions - the four dimensions), and the Holy Spirit (the way to realize this - the universal manifold).
Without the aid of anthropomorphism we can now see a creation process or mechanism in which such trinity makes sense also for non religious people.

The Pelastration concept gives probably for the first time a glimpse how this point of singularity started.

De-pelastration= when the impact redraws this acts like a block-hole (shrinking and increasing density) till it disappears in a funnel (Kaku: "One puzzle, however, is that, according to Einstein's equations, the funnel of a black hole necessarily connects our universe with a parallel universe. Furthermore, if the funnel connects our universe with itself, then we have a "worm hole"

Look now to the design of the pelastration: a black hole.

Interesting:
Michio Kaku ( HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey ) : What Happened Before the Big Bang?
"One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of "wormholes" and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The current expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe."

Pelastration is maybe a bizarro approach but Michio Kaku again: "Given the fruitless search that has stumped the world's Nobel Prize winners for half a century, most physicists agree that the Theory of Everything must be a radical departure from everything that has been tried before. For example, Niels Bohr, founder of the modern atomic theory, once listened to Wolf gang Pauli's explanation of his version of the unified field theory. In frustration, Bohr finally stood up and said, "We are all agreed that your theory is absolutely crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough."

I can not judge the complete theory behind this "pelastration" theory, but I object only against the use of "nothingness" as something that has properties (it has a boundary) and exist in a spatio/temporal way, in other words, which implies the existence of matter and motion in some or other form.

I can think you use the term "nothingness" for reviving the concept of "creation ex nihilo", but to keep the discussion clear, I would suggest using different terms for the material brane that formed the pre-existing universe.
 
  • #174
Originally posted by pelastration
My postulate was: "Starting condition: Nothingness has a boundary (some call this the Void) which is unbreakable and infinite stretchable (cfr. tensegrite field of Buckminster)".

So the nothingness I am referring is an area that is surrounded by the void and - implicit - it can be pushed by forces behind the void (like a balloon-membrane can be pushed by your fingers). Even if there is a non-active medium inside such balloon that medium will become active by these external vibrations. This description uses standard semantics.

The pelastration concept - this special space curvature - shows the creation of a new dimension. Still the content stays identical in the totality.

The nothingness can also be a local restructured part (island) of what is behind the Void.
The moment that the void pelastrates itself can be: the point of singularity.

Suddenly from the Void (Hyperspace) appears a NEW DIMENSION : the start of our Universe.

As Stephen Hawkins explained: 'Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers...there is a point in the universe where the general theory of relativity breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity... all our theories of science break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. One may say that Time had a beginning at the Big Bang'.

And since you probably started laughing about those crazy pelastrations, read this: Michio Kaku (see below more): "The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size."

In the pelastration concept the original structure splits in a basic passive part (receptive tube) and the pelastrating second part (impact tube) that becomes double layered. 10 = 6 + 4

This is like the paradox of self-fertilization in old myths, in the symbol of the Uroboros and the paradox of the Trinity in several religions. Without wanting to hurt religious feeling or vision of others: God is totality: there is only one. There is however also the trinity: the Father (still behind the Void - Six dimensions), the Son ( the local manifestation in other dimensions - the four dimensions), and the Holy Spirit (the way to realize this - the universal manifold).
Without the aid of anthropomorphism we can now see a creation process or mechanism in which such trinity makes sense also for non religious people.

The Pelastration concept gives probably for the first time a glimpse how this point of singularity started.

De-pelastration= when the impact redraws this acts like a block-hole (shrinking and increasing density) till it disappears in a funnel (Kaku: "One puzzle, however, is that, according to Einstein's equations, the funnel of a black hole necessarily connects our universe with a parallel universe. Furthermore, if the funnel connects our universe with itself, then we have a "worm hole"

Look now to the design of the pelastration: a black hole.

Interesting:
Michio Kaku ( HyperSpace : A Scientific Odyssey ) : What Happened Before the Big Bang?
"One advantage to having a theory of all forces is that we may be able to resolve some of the thorniest, long-standing questions in physics, such as the origin of the universe, and the existence of "wormholes" and even time machines. The 10 dimensional superstring theory, for example, gives us a compelling explanation of the origin of the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which took place 15 to 20 billion years ago, which sent the stars and galaxies hurling in all directions. In this theory, the universe originally started as a perfect 10 dimensional universe with nothing in it. In the beginning, the universe was completely empty. However, this 10 dimensional universe was not stable. The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size. This explains the origin of the Big Bang. The current expansion of the universe, which we can measure with our instruments, is a rather minor aftershock of a more cataclysmic collapse: the breaking of a 10 dimensional universe into a four and six dimensional universe."

Pelastration is maybe a bizarro approach but Michio Kaku again: "Given the fruitless search that has stumped the world's Nobel Prize winners for half a century, most physicists agree that the Theory of Everything must be a radical departure from everything that has been tried before. For example, Niels Bohr, founder of the modern atomic theory, once listened to Wolf gang Pauli's explanation of his version of the unified field theory. In frustration, Bohr finally stood up and said, "We are all agreed that your theory is absolutely crazy. But what divides us is whether your theory is crazy enough."


Not clear on the point about the 6 dimensions that collapsed into a little infinitesimal ball- how does it relate to our present universe?
 
  • #175
He's talking about compactified dimensions, essentially, the forces of nature. String theory is a metric (geometric) extension of Einstein's Relativity that incorporates Indetermancy. Just as Relativity speculates that time is the forth dimension and is vastly larger than we can see, String Theory speculates the forces of nature are actually dimensions so small we can't see them. Hence, they explain action-at-a-distance.

He's right in my opinion, his weird theory is no more or less rediculous than String theory or Quantum Mechanics... nothing can be weirder than those two, but unless it can make predictions it remains a purely philosophical issue. String theory has yet to make any predictions that have proven true, but it has helped to narrow the range of possibilities.

Pelastration, does your theory make predictions? Does it help to narrow the range of possibilities?
 
  • #176
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.
 
  • #177
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
 
  • #178


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.
 
  • #179
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?
 
  • #180
Also, consider negative energy. In a vacuum/void, there is no positive energy but there is negative energy. AND there's also dark matter...
 
  • #181


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #182
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. ;-)
 
  • #183
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.
 
  • #184
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.
 
  • #185
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).
 
  • #186
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.
 
  • #187
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.
 
  • #188


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.
 
  • #189
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
 
  • #190
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.
 
  • #191


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."
 
  • #192
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.
 
  • #193
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.
 
  • #194
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.
 
  • #195
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.
 
  • #196


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.
 
  • #197
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
 
  • #198
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:wink: ).

...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.
 
  • #199
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.
 
  • #200


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').
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Implications of a "theory of everything"
Replies
6
Views
2K
What is everything really? All of it?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Is the question "why does anything exist" troubling for physicists?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Problem when debloting my cell phone
Replies
1
Views
1K
Everything Energy? My Thoughts on the Question
Replies
3
Views
1K
What were your favorite childhood science hobbies?
Replies
29
Views
3K
Does Michio Kaku agree with Lawrence Krauss' concept of nothingness?
Replies
1
Views
2K
News Spoiler
Replies
2
Views
1K
What effect could a theory of everything have on science?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Using YouTube as an education resource
Replies
1
Views
426

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top