# Whose Mind?

#### Mentat

Most of us here are familiar with the Lifegazer's Mind idea, so I wont go into any real explanation - unless it becomes necessary; in which case, I think Lifegazer would do a better job than I would anyway.

Lifegazer has said that all minds are products of the Mind (or of God; the terms are rather interchangeable, according to Lifegazer's concept), and it is this statement/postulate that I wish to examine.

You see, I think there is an inconsistency in saying that all minds (thus refering to more than one mind) are the product of the one Mind. I just want an explanation as to how this could possibly be consistent - without becoming pure Solipsism, that is.

Related General Discussion News on Phys.org

#### wuliheron

Originally posted by Mentat
Most of us here are familiar with the Lifegazer's Mind idea, so I wont go into any real explanation - unless it becomes necessary; in which case, I think Lifegazer would do a better job than I would anyway.

Lifegazer has said that all minds are products of the Mind (or of God; the terms are rather interchangeable, according to Lifegazer's concept), and it is this statement/postulate that I wish to examine.

You see, I think there is an inconsistency in saying that all minds (thus refering to more than one mind) are the product of the one Mind. I just want an explanation as to how this could possibly be consistent - without becoming pure Solipsism, that is.
Ok, my mom has five children but inessence we are a single genetic family. Likewise, out of one mind...many. If that explanation isn't good enough, just send me $19.95 and I'll explain it in more detail. #### Mr. Robin Parsons It is feasable in the religious contexts inasmuch as religions teach that it is God's mind, through a spirit (hence protection of Both, God's mind from you, and you from God's mind) that imparts to you what it is that you require, but only in accordance with God's will. It is knowledge that is imparted, hence all "mind-spaces" can be seen as separate inasmuch as they do not communicate directly, but only through speech, (externally) which we all know is incomplete in it's ability to convey completely thoughts and/or Ideas. Solipsism is a sort of violation of itself, as in, if you were the only mind, then you should know why you created yourself. Personally, I disagree with Solipsism simply because it doesn't follow reality, inasmuch as, a Solipsist cannot control their own mind, any better then the rest of us, and the arguements against that amount to be an excersize in self deception. (only My opinion!) EDIT; to Wuliheron, the "cheques in the mail" so tell us the rest now while we wait OK? P.S.ssst, (not really!) Last edited: #### LogicalAtheist I feel I should point out that LG was removed from the forums so he won't be responding. As for his concept, as I said before, it's a large demonic entity he seemed to use to explain something simple, rather than doing formal research and getting answers that already exist. I don't see anything rational that could come out of it, other than that! [zz)] #### Mentat Re: Re: Whose Mind? Originally posted by wuliheron Ok, my mom has five children but inessence we are a single genetic family. Likewise, out of one mind...many. If that explanation isn't good enough, just send me$19.95 and I'll explain it in more detail.
Well, it's not good enough, but I ain't sending you any money.

It's not good enough because the Mind concept is dealing with reality as a whole. All of reality must be the product of one Mind, otherwise the Mind concept is false. So there is still inconsistency is implying that there are individual "minds".

#### wuliheron

Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, it's not good enough, but I ain't sending you any money.

It's not good enough because the Mind concept is dealing with reality as a whole. All of reality must be the product of one Mind, otherwise the Mind concept is false. So there is still inconsistency is implying that there are individual "minds".
Dang! And here I thought was a perfect opportunity to make a little cash. Guess I'll have to go back to selling baggies of gravel Elvis' Ghost walked on.

The idea is no more or less inconsistant than in declaring an individual to have multiple personalities or that infinity is composed of finite parts. It is essentially what both philosophical and religious Buddhists believe as well as a number of other schools of thought (sic). :0)

#### Mentat

Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by wuliheron
Dang! And here I thought was a perfect opportunity to make a little cash. Guess I'll have to go back to selling baggies of gravel Elvis' Ghost walked on.
LOL

The idea is no more or less inconsistant than in declaring an individual to have multiple personalities or that infinity is composed of finite parts.
How's that?

It is essentially what both philosophical and religious Buddhists believe as well as a number of other schools of thought (sic). :0)
That doesn't mean that it's not inconsistent.

#### wuliheron

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by Mentat

That doesn't mean that it's not inconsistent.
Exactly, the question is not whether or not it is inconsistant. It is a basic axiom, just as the big bang theory or Quantum Mechanics have inconsistent basic axioms. Some argue that all theories have inconsistent basic axioms and Godel's incompleteness theorem shows any system must ultimately be based on faith as much as anything else.

What matters then is whether or a basic axiom is horribly inconsistent, unnecessarilly complicated, and whether or not it is a useful theory or system. In the case of LG theory of the mind, its basic axioms are not overty complex or inconsistent, but they are useless--excepting possibly for personal purposes. Of course, he argued otherwise but, never provided any evidence to support this position.

In the case of LG theory of the mind, its basic axioms are not overty complex or inconsistent, but they are useless--excepting possibly for personal purposes. Of course, he argued otherwise but, never provided any evidence to support this position.
*Bang* (hammer drives nail into the coffin of the Mind)

I asked him once what purpose it might serve, but the answer must have seemed nebulous to me and now I can't remember what it was. I suppose that if The Mind could be proven as the ‘T’ruth to the satisfaction of all, then the practical value of what this might mean would be secondary. Unfortunately, I believe that we are stuck in a position of uncertainty with respect to that type of truth. This being the case MY mind falls back into the seat of my britches from whence it came and asks the question; What’s it gonna do for me???

#### wuliheron

*Bang* (hammer drives nail into the coffin of the Mind)

I asked him once what purpose it might serve, but the answer must have seemed nebulous to me and now I can't remember what it was. I suppose that if The Mind could be proven as the ‘T’ruth to the satisfaction of all, then the practical value of what this might mean would be secondary. Unfortunately, I believe that we are stuck in a position of uncertainty with respect to that type of truth. This being the case MY mind falls back into the seat of my britches from whence it came and asks the question; What’s it gonna do for me???
It also begs the question of where do we go from here. The Mind hypothesis has its limitations perhaps, but who we are and the paradox of existence are not among those limits. Like the virtego inspiring limits of infinity, unity is as much an emotional experience as anything else. It is at once a reality to be experienced and an abstraction beyond current scientific interpretation.

#### Iacchus32

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, it's not good enough, but I ain't sending you any money.

It's not good enough because the Mind concept is dealing with reality as a whole. All of reality must be the product of one Mind, otherwise the Mind concept is false. So there is still inconsistency is implying that there are individual "minds".
If you take it down to the cellular level, where each cell is "an entity" unto itself (so to speak), then it's very plausible to view the brain as a "collective entity" of cells.

This would make a great deal of sense in the way we view ourselves with God, as seperate entities (or cells), and yet part of the "collective mind" as a whole. And indeed each single cell becomes a lifeform unto its own (within the environment of other cells), and yet has little or no "knowledge" of being part of the greater mind as a whole.

And by the way, did you know that we're all part of the "one entity," which is called the Universe?

#### drag

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I feel I should point out that LG was removed from
the forums so he won't be responding.
WHAT ?! WHY ?!
His account is active, what are you talking

#### drag

Originally posted by Mentat
You see, I think there is an inconsistency in
saying that all minds (thus refering to
more than one mind
) are the product of
the one Mind. I just want an explanation
as to how this could possibly be consistent -
without becoming pure Solipsism, that is.
What's so unclear ? He means that everything
is produced by one's mind - whoever it is
that reads his message. (this message
is also only produced by your mind Mentat,
there is no drag, no PFs and indeed your
PC is not real - nothing is).

Live long and prosper.

#### LogicalAtheist

Did you not see the post by greg? Ask greg or look for it in the gen. section I believe.

#### heusdens

Originally posted by Mentat
Most of us here are familiar with the Lifegazer's Mind idea, so I wont go into any real explanation - unless it becomes necessary; in which case, I think Lifegazer would do a better job than I would anyway.

Lifegazer has said that all minds are products of the Mind (or of God; the terms are rather interchangeable, according to Lifegazer's concept), and it is this statement/postulate that I wish to examine.

You see, I think there is an inconsistency in saying that all minds (thus refering to more than one mind) are the product of the one Mind. I just want an explanation as to how this could possibly be consistent - without becoming pure Solipsism, that is.

LG's philosophy tries to inprint the thought on our minds, that the only way we know of the world is trough our capacities of our mind.
What exist outside of our own mind, is to some extend, not directly knowable. While this is certainly some aspect of us being humans, and having a mind, and perceiving of and thinking about the world with our mind, the conclusion of the argument, as if the world itself, as existing independend of our mind, would be an unncessary extention to "the world" (= our mind) is not a good conclusion.

It comes to this then, that all products of our mind become untestable, cause all we have is our minds, and not a real world (since we "conclude" or "assume" from that point of view, a world as such having independend existence apart from our mind, does not exist).

In this limited edition of the world (consisting entirely of only what is in our mind) we have no way of realy knowing anything. It is where Absolute Knowing meets Absolute Ignorance.
The history of our understanding of the world as it is, however shows us that the real knowledge we have accumulated and developed over the centuries, have always been formed in close relationship to the instruments provided to us by science, which extends our observation of the world, and using scientific methods for reasoning and observing. Between the two stands (having Absolute Knowledge, or having Absolutre no Knowledge) we have found that the only fruitfull basis for progress is that of relative knowledge, that has progressed over the centuries. The full truth we might never know, but this does not prevent us from having a more and more "realistic" idea about what the world in fact is, and how it develops.

What could have been known, if we had never left the point of view of Idealism, and only looked upon the world from the assumption, that the world itself has no independend existence in the first place?
Calling all of the world which exists independend of our mind, as the "Mind of God", is not realy helpfull in understanding anything about the world. For discovering laws of reasoning and developing them, Idealism certainly provided some good methods, which are quite usefull. Provided however we place them on a material foundation.

As to serve merit to both opposing philosophies (Idealism and Materialism) further it can be stated that both opposing philosophies can be said to form a "dialectical unity of opposites". Which also helps in understanding that the law of "interprenation of opposites" occurs, and that this has developed our philosophic and sicentific understanding of the world.

We should not think of opposites, as if that would be something we could go without. On the contrary. Just because there are opposites (both in matter itself, and in our reflections and thought on the world) development (of matter and of thought) occurs! There will never be a time, in which all such opposites can be said to be dismissed, cause if that would be the case, then that would be the end of the world, as no change or development ever would occur anymore! Instead, the world of matter and that of thought, develop through the constant proces of thesis- anti-thesis - synthesis, in which the latter just is the new thesis for the next development cycle. This is the development as it occurs anywhere in nature, in society and in the human mind.

It's all dialectics!

Last edited:

#### heusdens

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, the question is not whether or not it is inconsistant. It is a basic axiom, just as the big bang theory or Quantum Mechanics have inconsistent basic axioms. Some argue that all theories have inconsistent basic axioms and Godel's incompleteness theorem shows any system must ultimately be based on faith as much as anything else.

What matters then is whether or a basic axiom is horribly inconsistent, unnecessarilly complicated, and whether or not it is a useful theory or system. In the case of LG theory of the mind, its basic axioms are not overty complex or inconsistent, but they are useless--excepting possibly for personal purposes. Of course, he argued otherwise but, never provided any evidence to support this position.
Godel theorem would be a good point in arguing that our minds alone (if it can be seen as a "forma; system) can never judge this issue alone, and would us leave behind with blind faith.

But happily, we are not dependend on our mind's alone, to judge anything.
Suppose we construct a bridge. We have gathered data about how the material behaves, and what forces are excerted on the material.
Still we never be able to tell from that alone, if the bridge in all circumstances will hold. Luckily though, we can test our thoughts, and build models of the bridge, or test the material.
It might be, we actually built a bridge, we think will be strong enough, and which nevertheless crashes. But this will only help us in inspecting the error we made in calculating the bridge strenght, we must have obviously left some factor out. This will enable us, in the end, to learn from mistakes, and make better and better bridges.

If we have a pudding (something that looks like a pudding) before our nose, how can we tell that it realy tastes good, if that is all the information we have? Well, luckily we can eat the pudding, and then tell if it tastes well or not.

In the same way it is not sufficient to conjecture against the theorema's of gravity... one better learns to swim!

Last edited:

#### wuliheron

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by heusdens
Godel theorem would be a good point in arguing that our minds alone (if it can be seen as a "forma; system) can never judge this issue alone, and would us leave behind with blind faith.

But happily, we are not dependend on our mind's alone, to judge anything.
If we have a pudding (something that looks like a pudding) before our nose, how can we tell that it realy tastes good, if that is all the information we have? Well, luckily we can eat the pudding, and then tell if it tastes well or not.

The validity of our personal and collective experiences and the laws of physics represent yet again more fundamental axioms we must take on faith. For all we know the law of gravity will be repealled tomorrow (there actually is an ongoing effort being made to do this by a Canadian political party.) Bottom line, each evaluation we make ultimately comes back to the issue of not only can we trust our methods, but can we trust ourselves and our experience?

Will the pudding taste terrible because it has cyanide in it or because it has spontaneously become radioactive? Will our taste budds or mind betray us? Is some alien race in orbit manipulating our minds so that we just think we are eating a pudding? There are essentially two ways of approaching this connundrum, statistically and qualitatively, neither one of which completely resolves the situation.

#### Mentat

Re: Re: Whose Mind?

I just read the thread about Lifegazer's Departure, and I'm thoroughly ticked off (though it is probably the right decision).

I don't see much point in continuing this thread...

#### M. Gaspar

Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by Mentat
I just read the thread about Lifegazer's Departure, and I'm thoroughly ticked off (though it is probably the right decision).

I don't see much point in continuing this thread...
Don't be hasty.

#### M. Gaspar

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you take it down to the cellular level, where each cell is "an entity" unto itself (so to speak), then it's very plausible to view the brain as a "collective entity" of cells.

This would make a great deal of sense in the way we view ourselves with God, as seperate entities (or cells), and yet part of the "collective mind" as a whole. And indeed each single cell becomes a lifeform unto its own (within the environment of other cells), and yet has little or no "knowledge" of being part of the greater mind as a whole.

And by the way, did you know that we're all part of the "one entity," which is called the Universe?
Hey, stop using my material!

Weren't you, on another thread, unconvinced that the Universe is an "Entity"? Guess I've been persuasive despite the protestations.

Somewhere on this thread I wanted to add my little proposition about the nature and evolution of consciousness. And this might be as good a spot as any.

However, before I do, I want to address Mentat's much-appreciated input that my posts are laced with unsupportable "assumptions."

I have done what I said I was going to do, which is re-read most of my posts and HIGHLIGHT my "assumptions". And what I came to see is that most were NOT "assumptions" but were, rather, PROPOSITIONS.

When one proposes an idea, it is not INSTANTLY PROVEN. It may, in fact, NEVER be proven...or may be proven WRONG.

My seemingly endless supply of PROPOSITIONS are only IDEAS to work with for the sake of discussion. True, I'm "attached" to a few of them, and will attempt to "make a case" for them as if I actually "KNOW"...but really I'm testing for faulty logic and thus ENJOY every kick in the pants I get.

Not wishing to go over my 10000 character limit per post, I will seek another quote from which to procede.

Last edited:

#### M. Gaspar

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by wuliheron
The validity of our personal and collective experiences and the laws of physics represent yet again more fundamental axioms we must take on faith. For all we know the law of gravity will be repealled tomorrow (there actually is an ongoing effort being made to do this by a Canadian political party.) Bottom line, each evaluation we make ultimately comes back to the issue of not only can we trust our methods, but can we trust ourselves and our experience?

Will the pudding taste terrible because it has cyanide in it or because it has spontaneously become radioactive? Will our taste budds or mind betray us? Is some alien race in orbit manipulating our minds so that we just think we are eating a pudding? There are essentially two ways of approaching this connundrum, statistically and qualitatively, neither one of which completely resolves the situation.
Has my mind betrayed me...or ABANDONED me??? Let's see...

I few years back I was thinking about "symmetry"...or, at least, my personal interpretation of symmetry, which may have nothing to do at all with scientific definitions. AND AM HEREBY REQUESTING INPUT IF I AM WAY OFF.

But "off" or not, my mind migrated to an interesting (to me) proposition: that "physical reality" is a "metaphor" for non-physical "reality".

In other words, the forces, processes and "ingredients" of the physical parts of the Universe have correlary forces, processes and "ingredients" in the non-physical parts of the Universe.

Thus, at the moment of the "Big Bang", not only did energy condense down and fragment into a soup of elementary particles that have since "come together" via natural forces into dynamic, coherent systems of baryonic matter ...CONSCIOUSNESS also "fragmented" out of the Primal Singularity that was the Universe just prior to the "Big Bang".

And, like matter, consciousness has been ACCRETING...but not forming "mass" but rather a NETWORK of dynamic, coherent systems of THOUGHT.

So, while the Universe -- as a SINGULARITY -- "had all it's marbles"...after the "Big Bang" It "lost its marbles" and has been spending all this time "gathering them up" again.

I believe this is part of the process in EACH INCARNATION of the Universe...that the Universe loses knowledge of Itself for the function of creating a new Experience out of the same "stuff".

So I agree with Iacchus because I agree with myself...that we are part of the cosmic mind that's CONTRIBUTING to the EVOLUTION of the Universe Itself.

And let us not forget another part of my proposition: that every spec of "matter" has an element of "consciousness" to it...and possibably a spec of "spirit" too.

Last edited:

#### heusdens

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Has my mind betrayed me...or ABANDONED me??? Let's see...

I few years back I was thinking about "symmetry"...or, at least, my personal interpretation of symmetry, which may have nothing to do at all with scientific definitions. AND AM HEREBY REQUESTING INPUT IF I AM WAY OFF.

But "off" or not, my mind migrated to an interesting (to me) proposition: that "physical reality" is a "metaphor" for non-physical "reality".

In other words, the forces, processes and "ingredients" of the physical parts of the Universe have correlary forces, processes and "ingredients" in the non-physical parts of the Universe.

Thus, at the moment of the "Big Bang", not only did energy condense down and fragment into a soup of elementary particles that have since "come together" via natural forces into dynamic, coherent systems of baryonic matter ...CONSCIOUSNESS also "fragmented" out of the Primal Singularity that was the Universe just prior to the "Big Bang".

And, like matter, consciousness has been ACCRETING...but not forming "mass" but rather a NETWORK of dynamic, coherent systems of THOUGHT.

So, while the Universe -- as a SINGULARITY -- "had all it's marbles"...after the "Big Bang" It "lost its marbles" and has been spending all this time "gathering them up" again.

I believe this is part of the process in EACH INCARNATION of the Universe...that the Universe loses knowledge of Itself for the function of creating a new Experience out of the same "stuff".

So I agree with Iacchus because I agree with myself...that we are part of the cosmic mind that's CONTRIBUTING to the EVOLUTION of the Universe Itself.

And let us not forget another part of my proposition: that every spec of "matter" has an element of "consciousness" to it...and possibably a spec of "spirit" too.
This just means that you claim that Matter=Consciousness. But that is not true, since matter can be distinguished from consciousness.
What we call consciousness, is some specified form of matter, which has been built up in the course of evolutionary history.

Further your explenation of the big bang is plain wrong, since most big nbang fanatics claim that nothing (not even time) could exist before the big bang, so how could energy exist then?

#### Mentat

Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Don't be hasty.
Well, we can continue the discussions that we've started, but I just don't see much point in discussing the Mind hypothesis anymore.

#### Iacchus32

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, we can continue the discussions that we've started, but I just don't see much point in discussing the Mind hypothesis anymore.
Well, is it because nobody wants to argue it from Lifegazer's point of view? I can give it a shot. Of course you're probably going to say well, that's not the same ... Also, did you read my https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=26394#post26394" above?

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by wuliheron
As I said in the beginning, morality is a set of abstract rules which may or may not be relevent to any particular situation. Thus, abstract rules can contradict the need for physical contact and affection we require. B. F. Skinner provided a graphic example of this with his daughter.
And yet what is it about mankind's behavior that's not abstract? If everything is "perceived" with the mind, then everything emanates from the mind. Look around you. This whole "concrete jungle" which we now see before us was brought about by only one thing, the "abstract process" of man's thinking.

So what could that possibly mean? ... That man is nothing "but," a mythological construct. Therefore, if he wants to do "what is right," then he had better seek the "proper guidance" (wisdom) from within. Hmm ... does that mean it's possible to suffer a guilty conscience?

Does anybody here know of Joseph Campbell? If not, then you're missing out on this whole question of existence, and the essential role mythology has played in its development. Recommended reading: The Power of Myth. Transcripted from the popular television series on PBS, and now available on DVD.

Originally posted by wuliheron
A Zen master might hit you on the head with a stick for such a solipstic statement as if to say, "Here, does that feel abstract!" Words only have meaning given a context and when you start talking in terms of Oneness and Unity they becoming meaningless. Instead, what matters increasingly, again, is how we communicate our attitude.
Or, if I were to punch you in the nose ... And yet, without consciousness, whether I be dead, asleep, or totally unresponsive, "I" wouldn't feel anything. Neither am I in anyway saying external reality doesn't exist, only that its perception is an entirely "inside job" (i.e., whether it feels that way or not). Hey if I didn't have a brain, I can assure you (or could I?) that I wouldn't feel you whacking me with a stick!

Does this sound altogether different than Lifgazer's theory? I'm not sure that it does. Just worded a bit differently. And yet what it's really all about is your point of reference. Do "you" exist outside of yourself, as an external reference point or, does that "you" exist within? This can make a big difference in terms of accountability. And it's like Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here!"

Joseph Campbell understands this simple truth and his motto is, "Follow your bliss."
I agree ... absolutely!

Originally posted by wuliheron
"External" and "internal" are just concepts. Without air, you can't breath. Exactly where "you" start and end is debatable. That is another reason a Zen master might hit you on the head, to demonstrate and get across that what you feel and experience is more important than any abstract thoughts on the subject.
If it weren't for the fact of mirrors, I would have to agree with you. And by Jove that would be an external reflection of an "internal awareness," by which I project my identity into the image (form) that I see in the mirror.

And besides, breathing is done subconsciously, and is not part of your awareness, "consciously."

You also need to understand that this is a scientifically "biased" forum, and that science would pretty much dismiss the Zen master due to the "subjective nature" of feelings and experience. I'm not saying I would, mind you!

Originally posted by wuliheron
What is certain, again, is I need the microscopic mites on my eyelashes to see, the ones on my skin to live, the air that I breath, the food and water I consume, the love and attention my mother gave me as a baby. Where exactly you might care to draw the line between me and not me, perhaps, is debatable but those needs are not.
To whom is this certain? It's not certain to me, and yet I still see? This is all knowledge, of the aftermath, and doesn't affect one bit my "conscious ability" to perceive. Unless of course I were in the "conscious act" of eating which, I'm abouts to go do right now.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### M. Gaspar

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose Mind?

Originally posted by heusdens
This just means that you claim that Matter=Consciousness. But that is not true, since matter can be distinguished from consciousness.
What we call consciousness, is some specified form of matter, which has been built up in the course of evolutionary history.

Further your explenation of the big bang is plain wrong, since most big nbang fanatics claim that nothing (not even time) could exist before the big bang, so how could energy exist then?
Please show me where I said that matter equals consciousness.

I have said that within every particle or collection of matter, there is a "piece" of consciousness "in" it...and, possibly, spirit.

Since when is consciousness "some specified form of matter"?

You seem to be saying that conscious arose out of increasingly complex organic systems which are made of matter amd nothing else. Why is YOUR "explanation" of the genesis of consciousness any more logical than mine?

I am saying that consciousness ASSEMBLED ALSO...in tandem with the physical Universe. And, while matter, consciousness (ans spirit?) are in some ways SEPARATE THINGS, they are also CONNECTED and INSEPARABLE...I propose.

Who cares what "Big Bang Fanatics" think? If most of them take the view that "nothing existed 'before' the Big Bang"...then they are simply thinking small.

What better "mechanism" might there be for an "Eternal Entity" than to expand and contract, from Big Bang to Big Crunch...with an "all-knowing" Singularity of Itself in between?

What existed before the most recent Big Bang? A Singularity comprised of Everything That Is. Within this Singularity was the Gestaldt of all that had "gone before" ...experientially speaking.

What existed before the Singularity? The last incarnation of the Universe -- the "life" It "lived" between the previous Big Bang and Big Crunch.

This, for me, would be making good use of Eternity...that of an creative and evolving Being having an ongoing series of very complex (and emotion-laden) experiences...of which we, in THIS incarnation, are a part.

But, getting back to the Singularity...I am saying that the CONSCIOUSNESS of the Universe from Its "last" incarnationn (...as well as the one before that ...and the one before that) ...ALL OF THESE AWARENESSES were contained intrinsically in the Singularity.

But the aggregate of consciousness -- like matter -- split apart -- yet again -- in the "rebirthing process" I have been discussing...for the FUNCTION of RE-ASSEMBLING in novel ways to experience novel things.

Seems simple to me...and, no doubt, VERY "simple" to you!

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving