The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[pmaust]

Chen,

 

I have an eerie feeling that you have ascribed a set of values to consciousness that may not be deserved. Insanity is also consciousness of sorts. Delusion and hullicinations are variations of the consciousness experience. The human mind can easily be decieved and our consciousness alone may be of little value in immediately assessing the validy of a given experience or reality. Hence the need for a psychiatrist skilled in the prescription of certain drugs. Is consciousness itself then subject to physical or material influences?

[Guest chen2739]

Chen,

 

I have an eerie feeling that you have ascribed a set of values to consciousness that may not be deserved. Insanity is also consciousness of sorts. Delusion and hullicinations are variations of the consciousness experience. The human mind can easily be decieved and our consciousness alone may be of little value in immediately assessing the validy of a given experience or reality. Hence the need for a psychiatrist skilled in the prescription of certain drugs. Is consciousness itself then subject to physical or material influences?

 

Oh yeah? And I have a eerie feeling that someone here is being a bigot.

Why don't you go back and RE-read that last long post of mine from a

more open minded point of view and you will see that I am not as so

'delusional' as you would like to believe. Objective absolute reality and truth of the totality of all existence IS what IT IS without the need of some Homo Sapien(s) discovering it, acknowledging it, proving it, accepting it, or admiring it, or using it. IT exists much like the Mandelbrot Set, its validity and existence dependent upon nothing but ITself. Whether you debate this or not, believe it or not, deny it or not, it IS what it IS, and no one and nothing can ever change it, whether you 'feel' that you like it or not.

[infamous]

So when you add this to the question you get "What happened before there was nothing?"

And what disturbance within this nothingness stimulated something into existence? Somehow I find it difficult to imagine a disturbance occuring within nothingness. What may I ask is being disturbed? Either nothing means nothing or it does not. Somehow, I fear we don't really understand the word Nothing..... Like infinity, nothingness is difficult not only to imagine, but also to prove. It seems to me that nothingness may be more difficult to achieve than infinity. I prefer to believe that the universe is eternal, always was, and always will be. Just my two cents.............Infy

[Guest chen2739]

And what disturbance within this nothingness stimulated something into existence? Somehow I find it difficult to imagine a disturbance occuring within nothingness. What may I ask is being disturbed? Either nothing means nothing or it does not. Somehow, I fear we don't really understand the word Nothing..... Like infinity, nothingness is difficult not only to imagine, but also to prove. It seems to me that nothingness may be more difficult to achieve than infinity. I prefer to believe that the universe is eternal, always was, and always will be. Just my two cents.............Infy

 

 

There is a site on the internet called everythingforever DOT com that

attempts to solve this question by stating that NOTHING can not be possible because NOTHING can not ever exist.

 

I'm not saying this site is right, or that I agree with it, but it does shed light on the word "NOTHING" and it might help you understand better what we are trying to understand.

 

Basically it says that :

 

The thought experiment above reveals a sort of anomaly in how we see the world, and yet it is a paradox that anyone can sort out and appreciate regardless of education or religious beliefs. There are two concepts that we regularly combine together which don't belong together, and at this time in history those two concepts are regularly confused even in modern science and philosophy, and even in the dictionary. If we carefully study the common meaning of nothing we can discover two distinct references. One reference we make is toward something that has no discernable form or substance, such as a void or a vacuum. Nothing logically wrong in this case. This first type of nothing is real and exists. It is actually quite ordinary. It is just extremely boring. There is nothing in the refrigerator. There is nothing on TV. However, the other reference we make when using the word nothing is toward a different and much more radical concept, that of non-existence.The very word nothingnothing without differentiating between the nothing that exists and the nothing that doesn't. is the culprit, or rather our insistence on using the word We tend to mix the two together and so we muddy up our understanding of both, and since nothing is a fundamental axiom in the way each of us models reality, well, you see the problem.

 

There is a real nothing that seems to have no form, and this nothing is one of the most common features found in nature. The ordinary empty space that surrounds us is the most obvious example. If we remove all the ordinary matter from space it becomes a singular expression of nature. The oneness of space makes it a singularity. Singularities are not uncommon. Imagine a plain white artist's canvas that hasn't been painted on, and is hung on the wall. Most people would agree that not only is there nothing painted on the canvas, but also that the blank sheet of white is a pretty good representation of nothing. It actually doesn't matter what single color is on the canvas, each is a singularity, and any single color if alone can represent nothing.

To be really clear about this, imagine yourself in a world of all white. You try to look out into the distance but all you see is white so you can't tell if it goes forever or just a few inches in front of your nose. Your mind tells you there is nothing around you. There is no distance, no substance, even though the white is real. In fact, if you further paint yourself white, suddenly all dimension is lost. You can't even differentiate between your body and your surroundings. After awhile you forget there is such a thing as white. If you were born into this dimension of white, you wouldn't see white, you would be blind to color, because you don't have any other color to judge the meaning of white against. For example, someone who is blind doesn't see black, because even if they did upon initially going blind, the black would quickly loose meaning for them because it is just one color and without differentiation, that one color becomes nothing at all. Paint the world one color and the world seems to turn into nothing, but there is still a world there, it has merely become a singularity.

But non-existence is a whole other subject. When the dictionary defines nothing as something that does not exist, it is reasonably obvious that the syntax of the phrase, simply the reference to a something which 'does not exist', makes no real sense. This is beyond the white world, even beyond the word 'nothing'. In fact simply using a word in any attempt to mean non-existence creates a sort of unsolvable riddle. What word can represent a form that isn't a form, or a thing that isn't a thing? What concept has no reality or meaning? How can we refer to a state of non-existence when there is no such state, and no such form? Indeed we have a problem here. Any attempt to define a non-existence using any meaningful idea or thought, by using the meaning that otherwise defines all language, that defines our reality, is by nature pre-destined to fail horribly. Non-existence cannot be. There is no such thing. In fact there is no such concept or idea. There is only the mistake of assuming the word non-existence has any meaning whatsoever. Non-existence cannot be. And that is a radical concept, very different from the real nothing that exists.

The fact that we regularly confuse nothing and non-existence is the very reason we don't yet understand why we exist.

 

In this strange realization we are confronting an anomaly, a single part of our thinking that doesn't fit in with the rest. In the use of meaning, the meaning that otherwise defines all things in all languages, a non-existence cannot be described. Nor can it be imagined or conceptualized. It cannot be signified, or resembled, or symbolized. By its own definition, a non-existence cannot even be inferred with any logical coherency. It is a one of a kind. Nonexistence is a word without meaning. Term non-existence does not belong as a member of any language. Its use is a contradiction in meaningfulness. And there is no escaping this realization once it is understood. All attempts to define non-existence, even as the absence of existence or as the negation of being commits a fundamental semantic crime. It is true that the words absence and negation, or existence and being, each have real syntactic meanings, but when placed together they express a radical contradiction, since they attempt to define with meaning a non-something which by definition cannot have meaning at all. It is the existence and being of the universe that creates meaning, or at least they are intermingled. Only existence allows for there to be meaning, just as only meaning allows for there to be existence. So the word nonexistence is purely meaningless gibberish.

 

At the heart of the matter is that the notion of a total nothingness is a false assumption we make. Non-existence by its own definition cannot be. That is a very ponderous statement, but a true one. The most simple of logic, and the deepest intuition, both lead to the same amazing realization. There is no alternative to existence. So our earlier time line into the past to search for the beginning of existence can never reach any point of origin. There is no such precipice as the one imagined. I am not suggesting the big bang didn't happen. If we look into the past we might find a point where our space-time begins from some timeless singularity, but that state, like the page of a story book, continues to exist even after our time begins and travels away from it. And maybe there is some other explanation of how something else becomes our universe. But any attempt to find an ultimate beginning from nothing is doomed to fail.

 

 

The universe is everywhere we go and everywhere we see. There is no place where the universe is not. Yet we still imagine in a vague way an alternative, as if the universe could stop existing, as if we ourselves might not exist. Its kind of funny really, the way we spend most of our lives thinking we shouldn't exist, because it is so impossible for there to just be something rather than nothing, instead of realizing how inevitable and innate we are, instead of realizing there is no alternative to there being something. All this confusion because of a subtle mistake.

 

 

It is true that nothing does not have a clear designation in math or physics. Like everywhere else, nothing is also a general term in science, with a vague definition, and is always used generally and perhaps presumptuously in ambiguous applications. Never the less, physicists and mathematicians do commonly make conceptual relationships between nothing and other concepts such as zero, the empty set, a vacuum, and empty space. It is for that very reason, that scientists are astonished about how such things behave in contradiction to our expectations of nothing. The notion of a vacuum or empty space having a hidden content, or producing things such as virtual particles, is expressed as one of the great curiosities of physics and nature. The association of nothing with other concepts of void or potential leads us to a fundamental contradiction between old and new thought patterns. Many times I have heard scientists, due to this issue, remark that apparently you CAN get something from nothing, or there is such a thing as a free lunch in physics.

 

But we shouldn't confuse voids and vacuums with non-existence. A void is a physical phenomenon. Just because a void has singular form, doesn't justify regarding it as non-existence. And considering our language usage, the fact that nothing isn't precisely defined, or the way we define nothing or confuse together a physical void and non-existence, such semantic mistakes of language are precisely what is causing a problem when we deal with cosmic issues.

 

The first step and the most simple way to solve the problem is by first admitting the distinction, then studying this issue enough to clearly recognize that a nothing of singular form bears no relationship to non-existence. We must cease entirely our mingling of the two ideas, never using the word nothing in any association with non-existence. The term non-existence is far more specific concerning what is actually put into question when we ask, how did something begin? So why then also define and use the word nothing to mean non-existence, when it is also used to refer to the absence of thingness, or zero things, or empty space, which are all physical states that exist. This uniformity issue in nature should certainly not be confused with non-existence. The uniformity of nothing is best identified as a singular type of being. We, in not being specific, and in confusing the two definitions now attributed to the word nothing, are creating our own confusion when we think and talk about such things.

 

When we attribute qualities such as simple or empty to the word non-existence we are only confusing real attributes of uniformity and even perfect symmetry with a concept which when precisely defined as non-existence is devoid of any such properties.

 

We might imagine that nothingness is the default state before the big bang, except nothingness has an innate fault in it. That fault allows there to be a fluctuation in the void, and somethingness erupts from nothing. We are actually nearing the truth here but still mincing words, since a nothing which is originally faulty isn't really a nothing. By definition, a true nothing doesn't cause anything to exist and has no power or content to change its designation as the default. What is there to cause change in a timeless nonexistent nothing? And so if the default state of nature is nothing, it would always be so, not actually for a duration of time since there would not be a duration of time either.

In questioning how it is possible that the universe exists, we are led to consider the question of why there is something and not nothing. And that very first step is a mistake. A nothing that doesn't exist cannot fluctuate, it cannot fracture, because by definition there is nothing to produce the damage. In complete absence of a universe there is no time or change or first cause. A first cause certainly would not be a part of nothingness, it would instead have to be found in the first stages of the universe. So when we imagine an absolute nothingness as a possibility, as the default, as if nothing somehow proceeded the universe, we deny any possibility of our present existence. That is the dubious but unquestionable fact that makes the universe seem like a miracle, when the universe should seem as if it is inevitable.

 

 

The term non-existence denies, and in so doing borrows meaning, in a way that no other concept or idea attempts to deny or borrow meaning, since the borrowing concept by definition has no meaning itself. Any other case of borrowed meaning refers to something not denied. If something is non-white, we know the borrowing color is some other, at minimum, off-white color. The word not denies and borrows meaning simultaneously. If we say a temperature is not cold, the reference is to being greater than cold, so something is warm or just right, or perhaps its not cold, but extremely cold. The meaning of not-cold has been borrowed from the meaning of cold. If we refer to not-above, not-old, not-clear, with each word, all that is being referred to has meaning independent of the borrowing terms of above, old, and clear. But the term non-existence does not refer to anything else of meaning. The word existence cannot lend any positive meaning to the word non-existence. No other concept needs to, or tries to, attempt this impossibility.

 

The word nonexistence tries to specify the absence of existence, and seems to work because all other such denials accomplish their task. It seems to work because in physical reality when some thing doesn't exist there is indeed a void in its place, but the void left behind when we say there is nothing in the refrigerator is the real nothing, and not a non-existence.

 

As step further is to try to imagine that there is no existence, no universe, to borrow meaning from. Would non-existence then have meaning? Without the meaning given the word existence, the term non-existence fails no less visibly than before. The term non-existence attempts to give meaning to what has no meaning independently. And thus the argument here is that although non-existence might seem to refer to some aspect worthy of a word, some aspect (not of reality, meaning, or existence) that is perhaps difficult to logically identify, in actuality, the truth is that we are playing a game of words in using the term. Its not merely that we cannot speak of the unreal, but rather the unreal isn't worthy of a word. The unreal doesn't exist because meaninglessness doesn't exist.

 

And what it all comes down to is this. In a world of meaning, we can invent a word to suggest non-meaning, but if the only way that we can infer non-meaning, is through the use of meaning, then we are just playing a trick on ourselves. The use of meaning, cannot give meaning to non-meaning. In other words, given that there is meaning, then all there is, and ever will be, and ever could be, is meaning. There is no alternative. All there is, and ever could be, is existence. The question being asked, how did something come from non-existence, is not a meaningful question. It is just an erroneous thought pattern in our heads that eventually we will erase as we realize being is the default without any alternative.

 

The strange exhilarating paradox visible here can be thought about for a long time, and after every avenue is explored and every escape route is attempted without success, it becomes apparent that the term non-existence is a conceptual mistake. As a result we wonder why we exist instead of nothing at all, because our thoughts default to a vague understanding of nothing and non-existence, and we fail to recognize that a universe has to exist, for nothing at all is not really an alternative, since non-existence cannot be. In a mindful state, non-existence should seem to us to be absolutely impossible, and being should seem to us to be absolutely inevitable and natural.

 

When we say there is nothing here or over there, what we really are identifying is that there in time there is only a oneness. That oneness seems to us to be a nothing, but that is one of our mistaken expectations made from our constant living in a world of many things. Objects are just asymmetries that break down to positives and negatives. They are just forms which in every case are in some way imperfect, incomplete, and imbalanced. When all forms are unified they become a whole form, and the individual forms are lost, given to the whole form, which we see as being formless, or neutral, because we only see the many forms, things, objects, imbalances, as what constructs physical reality. And so we see the uniformity, the wholeness, and perfect symmetry of empty space as being nothing in comparison. We simply are not accustomed to relating to at any part of the world when it is unified and one.

 

It is a wonderful realization really, to be aware that the universe always has been, and shall always be. With a little work, it is possible to make what I call the switch and see the space we inhabit as full. It is possible to know that nothingness is merely something not plural or dualistic, and so see the world of things as less than the whole, rather than the normal mindset of seeing things as magically arisen above nothing. And it certainly makes sense then to continue onward, to wonder about the nature of eternity, and to wonder about the shape of a universe that has always existed.

 

Personally, I was very surprised to find that the inevitability of being is a very old discovery, it was realized over two thousand years ago by a man named Parmenides. Parmenides taught this principle to his friend and student Zeno, and it is very possible that Parmenides taught it to a young Socrates, who was only about twenty years old when he first met Parmenides. I suppose Parmenides was far ahead of his time when he taught the unity of being based upon this principle.

Its seems very odd to me that this idea is there in our past, our history, discovered and spoken, studied occasionally at Universities, and yet its not commonly passed on, at very least as a valid solution. Especially since it is really the only valid solution discovered to date.

There has never been a non-existence in the past, as there would be no quality to sustain a non something in time, and thus non-existence could not be even for an infinitely small moment. Nor is it possible that all existence ends in the future, because, as simple as it can be said, being has no alternative. This is fundamentally why we exist. It is the ground of timelessness. The existence of a universe is not unlikely as it sometimes seems to us. The most fundamental aspect of nature, the foundation of reality, is the basic principle that existence is inevitable. The Universe is what exists without anything being created.

 

One of my favorite quotes is from John Archibald Wheeler, an American physicist at Princeton University, who has been saying for many years, "To my mind there must be at the bottom of it all not an utterly simple equation but an utterly simple idea, and to me that idea when we finally discover it will be so compelling, so inevitable, so beautiful, that we will all say to each other, oh how could it have been otherwise."

Of course there must be some sort of reason or simple idea that explains why we exist, and there is possibly a very simple or a very complex reason for the laws that govern the universe. Wheeler understands, from what we know of nature and reality, such equations and principles do not themselves create. They have a great power, a power to describe, to reflect what is, and be true, and just maybe conscious ideas can influence the world in an unseen way, but the Universe, existence itself, is beyond all great powers.

 

So in summary, remember that non-existence cannot be. The nothings we observe are just singularities that seem formless in comparison to all the forms we observe. We can see formlessness as no (zero) things, from the mode of seeing the Universe as made of many things, or we can see formlessness as the ultimate everything, in which case everything else is within that whole and so less than the whole. Both full and empty perspectives are valid. Neither is an illusion. There has to be form or many things in order for all the parts to sum into the unified whole. But we should wonder if one mode is primary reality and one mode is a secondary reality. Not hard to figure out which is which.

 

The principle that Non-existence cannot be, and therefore existence has always been isn't a formula, or an equation, or a first cause. It doesn't create the universe. It doesn't even relate to cause and effect. It is simply a mental recognition about nature, one which is enlightening as it dissolves our seemingly innate expectations that the universe somehow began in the past. Suddenly in knowing this, the notion disappears that there is some alternative to a universe being here.

[infamous]

One question for you chen2739; Was that last post a product of your own making or, did you cut and paste it here from a different source. We would much prefer that you give us your thoughts in your own words..........Infy

[Guest chen2739]

In my own quest for the theory of everything and the truth and reality of the totality of all existence I have found the Non-Dualistic Teachings

of Sri Nisargadatta quite useful and enlightening.

 

He has often said things like:

 

"Understand that the consciousness has arisen spontaneously in you, the Absolute.

Once you are conscious of yourself you know you exist and you love this beingness; you do not want this beingness to depart from you, and it is this that makes you strive all day until sleep overcomes you, in order to keep the beingness satisfied. Then the guru tells you the true state of affairs, that this consciousness which you love so much is only an illusion. It is the basic cause of all unhappiness and your true state is before this consciousness arose. Understand this thoroughly, intuitively, beyond all words and concepts, but also know that if this understanding is just something happening in the intellect it will be of no use to you, because it will be at the level of phenomenal consciousness... concepts... and that consciousness is nothing but illusion. Whatever you know is imperfect, fraudulent. Go where you do not know. Recede into the source, into no form, no beingness; there you are perfect. Whatever you witness will not remain with you; it is imperfect. The one who recognizes the imperfect as imperfect is perfect; that one is complete in himself."

 

"Nothing, nobody existed prior to you.

When your beingness appeared then everything appeared. Understand that first moment when you understood that you are, the point at which everything arose. The source and the end are the same point. In the spiritual hierarchy going from the grossest to the subtlest, you are the subtlest. The very base is you, full and complete, without

need for knowledge of who you are. Suddenly the space-like, all-pervading 'I amness' appears. Spontaneously, uncalled for, the beingness has come and is being witnessed by

you, the Absolute. Later, this space-like 'I amness' disappears and the beingness goes back into oblivion. You remain in the eternal state, your true unchanging state. Prior to your beingness, nothing was... but you, the Absolute. After the beingness comes, still all

there is is you, the Absolute. Without the beingness you, the Absolute, don't know you are. You are without any stigma, not covered by anything. You are the Paramatman, the

core Self, the highest Self, the Absolute, subtler than space, beyond consciousness, beyond the 'I amness'.

In meditation, let your beingness merge in your Self, the non-dual state. Remain still.

Do not struggle to come out of the mud of your concepts, you will only go deeper. Simply abide in the stillness. The Self has no occasion to say it exists; it is in eternity. When there is no body-mind there can be no practice; only the stillness of the Self remains."

 

"It is a very complicated riddle. You have to discard whatever you know, whatever you have read, and have a firm conviction about That about which nobody knows anything. You can't get any information about That, and yet about That you must have a firm conviction. Many people may reach that stage which is, but it is very, very rare

that one reaches that stage which is not. It transcends all knowledge. His position is secure and stable and eternal. That which you don't know that is the right state. But this no-knowingness is not available right off.

Most essential, to begin with, is that knowledge 'I am'. Claim it. Appropriate it as your own. If that is not there nothing is. Knowledge of all the stages will be obtained only with the aid of that knowledge 'I am'. From the Absolute, no-knowing state spontaneously this consciousness 'I am' has appeared... there is no reason, no cause.

This 'I amness’ contains the entire cosmos. Spontaneously it comes, and along with it come the waking and the deep sleep states, the five elements, the three qualities, everything.

Then this 'I amness' embraces the body made up of the elements as its self, and identifies itself with it. This 'I amness' has its own love to be. It wants to remain, to perpetuate itself, but it is not eternal. It is just a passing show, an illusion that comes and goes on the Real.

 

When this play comes, it happens spontaneously. The sum total of all this is illusion and nobody is responsible for creation - it has come spontaneously and there is no question of improvement in that - it will go on its own way. When you are ignorant, you think that you are playing a part in this manifest world. In the realm of beingness the fragmentation begins; it is limited, conditioned, because in this beingness we all try to claim the actions as ours. But there is no one working deliberately; you cannot claim anything in the process. Just realize that all phenomena, all concepts take place in the play of consciousness. There is no question of an independent entity; everything is an appearance in consciousness only. Just as in a piece of cloth the main element is the thread, so in any appearance the essence is consciousness. This must be deeply understood. Whatever natural experiences you encounter, just accept them. Don't try to alter them, just accept them as they come. But this understanding will not happen as long as there is identification with the body. As long as that identification is there you will think of benefiting this pseudo-personality. The whole universe is alive as long as you have this consciousness; once gone from you nothing is there. While it is there, fix your identity firmly on this beingness; but do not reserve exclusive identity for this physical bundle. Whatever identity you have is the play of the five elements; it is universal. Do not give that beingness limbs, shape or form, for once you have given it form you have limited it. Understand this energy which is behind the entire manifestation of the universe.

 

Be still in your beingness. Then even it will disappear and you will merge in Truth. All that needs to be done is to find out your real source and take up headquarters there.

From the Absolute standpoint, your beingness is only ignorance. Nothing comes and nothing goes; it is a mirage. All there is is the Absolute, all there is is the Truth. The witness of the consciousness never comes into the realm of the consciousness. When you pursue this spiritual path of understanding the Self, all your desires just drop off... even the primary desire... to be. When you stay put in the beingness for some time, that drops off. Then you are in the Absolute... there is no movement for you. You are minding the show. Consciousness extinguishes itself, knowingness disappears, and you, the Absolute remains. That is the moment of death.

 

This is real liberation: to know that you are nothing. All your knowledge, including yourself, is liquidated; then you are liberated. When the devotee subsides into nothingness, the world and God also subside into nothingness. You come to the conclusion that in the final analysis your balance sheet is nil."

[Guest chen2739]

One question for you chen2739; Was that last post a product of your own making or, did you cut and paste it here from a different source. We would much prefer that you give us your thoughts in your own words..........Infy

 

I specified explicitly in that post where I got my information from.

I would have given a URL hyperlink too if it wasn't for this sites rules that newbies can't link......

[InfiniteNow]

Was that last post a product of your own making or, did you cut and paste it here from a different source.

While it could, of course, be both their own work AND copy/pasted, I have a rather high confidence that it is at the very least pasted from somewhere considering both the length and frequency new posts are added...

[InfiniteNow]

I specified explicitly in that post where I got my information from.

I would have given a URL hyperlink too if it wasn't for this sites rules that newbies can't link......

 

Please watch your tone when responding to our members. You have not been disrespected, nor should you disrespect them. There is no need for venom when one's material is worthy of sharing.

[Guest chen2739]

While it could, of course, be both their own work AND copy/pasted, I have a rather high confidence that it is pasted from somewhere considering both the length and frequency new posts are added...

 

I have always specified explicitly in that post and any other applicable where I got my information from.

 

I have always believed it is the IDEAS that matter, not whom it originates from. I have given full credit where it is due, and I also believe that if someone else somewhere else has already discovered a fact or truth of the underlying fabric of existence and reality and this person has already taken the time to post it online in a more elegant and articulate form that I could have written, then why take the time to reinvent the wheel? Science is not based on starting from scratch each and every time.

 

With all due respect to all on this forum, I am wondering why everyone here is generally more worried about syntax, grammatics, origin of source of information (I am NOT plagiarising since I do give full credit where it is due) and all the other 'nick picking' and no one has challegend the evidence I have provided and the ideas of myself and others whom I have shared by their own merit. Forgive me for saying this, but in my opinion it feels like to me its almost like you guys are trying to circumvent the true matter on hand by diverting attention to other trivial and nonrelated matters. Why hasn't anyone made a scientific critic of the theory that CONSCIOUSNESS as the basic fundamental underlying fabric of the physical universe and a property of the omnium multiverse / totality of all existence??

 

If this behavior bothers you or violates CoC I will stop doing this and put in my own words instead.

 

Again, I look forward to someone making a scientific critic of the theory that CONSCIOUSNESS is a basic fundamental property of physical universe. Given what I have provided in my other posts on this thread, I would be curious to see logical well thought out arguements on HOW CONSCIOUSNESS-SPACE-TIME continuum could NOT be a valid model of reality. I believe this theory should rightfully surplant the current scientific communities collective DENIAL of Consciousness as something fundamental just like space and time. Need I remind you that Albert Einstein spelled out the assumptions of constant light speed and no preferred reference frame, but saw no need to mention mind-matter independence. Einstein was certainly aware of this underlying assumption, but to find his acknowledgement of it, we have to turn to his more general writings. In James Clerke Maxwell: A Commemorative Volume, he said: "The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science."

 

Think for a second the implications of what Einstein said.

The reason I seek a theory of everything is because indeed EVERYTHING revolves around this ONE theory, this one TRUTH and this one REALITY. It connects everything to everything else. Science so far has gotten wrong the initial starting point axiom in which we can base everything else from. It has gotten wrong the first final a priori assumption. Therefore its underlying ground is shaking and its foundation nonexistant. How then can we trust anything that comes from a flawed scientific approach such as our current paradigm and unjust status quo? Ironically, science totally breaks down and becomes unscientific and very 'religious' at the very crucial junction of ground zero of reality, at the very moment when we need science the most it is the least reliable the least scientific. If you cannot see the bigger complete picture and can't even get the general direction correct, then what does anything else you do or think even matter at all? This is the question I would love to ask our current scientific community, because it seems that it is dead wrong at the very place where it matters the most....

[InfiniteNow]

Consciousness has evaded simple definition for ages. It is more a philosophical exploration than a principle of astronomy/cosmology.

 

Your posts are long, and should be split up into sections. It's as if you are asking members to read a 600 page book for comment. Break your book into chapters, or better, paragraphs... discuss it, THEN move on.

 

And yes, your own words are always preferred. There are times when support and/or a link are necessary, but you should speak with your own voice when interacting here. You are new, and will learn, but we're not being tough on you, just treating you like everyone else.

 

 

What is the key point, in one or two sentences, that you would like members to focus on as pertains to the origin of the universe? We can all discuss that, offer new ideas and interests, and then explore the rest. Patience my friend...

[InfiniteNow]

I have always specified explicitly in that post and any other applicable where I got my information from.

You said "won't let me the new user link." ... but I'd rather not be accused of nit-picking.

 

Why hasn't anyone made a scientific critic of the theory that CONSCIOUSNESS as the basic fundamental underlying fabric of the physical universe and a property of the omnium multiverse / totality of all existence??

 

Here we go (upon cursory examination):

You argue with the stance that science is a single entitiy. It is an approach, a method...that is all.

You presume that consciousness is not accounted for in current explorations and theories.

You argue that consciouness is everything, yet fail to offer a valid description of what it is.

You use terms taken from the texts of QM, and arbitraily apply them to the state of awareness we collectively refer to as consciousness.

 

I do not necessarily disagree with you about consciousness being part of the final Theory of Everything (consciousness is, afterall, something). I struggle, however, to let go of the tangible understanding I have of how several things in this world work and integrate with one another for an undefined term or concept; a term/concept that millenia of philosophers and thinkers have not been able to harness adequately.

 

You tell me the parameters of consciousness that apply to all, then how that application can extend to the absolute and do a better job of current information, and I will begin to accept that the mystery is solved.

 

 

Cheers. :)

[Guest chen2739]

You said "won't let me the new user link." ... but I'd rather not be accused of nit-picking.

 

 

 

Here we go (upon cursory examination):

You argue with the stance that science is a single entitiy. It is an approach, a method...that is all.

You presume that consciousness is not accounted for in current explorations and theories.

You argue that consciouness is everything, yet fail to offer a valid description of what it is.

You use terms taken from the texts of QM, and arbitraily apply them to the state of awareness we collectively refer to as consciousness.

 

I do not necessarily disagree with you about consciousness being part of the final Theory of Everything (consciousness is, afterall, something). I struggle, however, to let go of the tangible understanding I have of how several things in this world work and integrate with one another for an undefined term or concept; a term/concept that millenia of philosophers and thinkers have not been able to harness adequately.

 

You tell me the parameters of consciousness that apply to all, then how that application can extend to the absolute and do a better job of current information, and I will begin to accept that the mystery is solved.

 

 

Cheers. :)

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

Since you want my own words and not a book here goes:

 

 

The Consciousness that I speak of is NOT the connotation that is commonly used by most people in general.

I do not mean for a 'consciousness' such as one that pertains to human mind, or the homo sapien species.

 

The Consciousness that I speak of is a low-level all encompassing consciousness that is so fundamental,

so basic and elementary, and yet so pervasive that most of us don't realize it even exists! Note here again,

I am talking about a different kind of consciousness, one that is as fundamental and nonreductive as space, time,

matter, energy, and the four known forces itself! I am not speaking of the human waking consciousness.

 

It is THIS all encompassing consciousness that bridges the holes of quantum mechanics and solves the

problem of the HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS (see wikipedia), and explains what

many religious mystics such as Christ has been trying to explain all along when he said that

'I' am the life the light and the only way to everlasting life. The 'I' of self does not exists, he

was really referring to the same Consciousness that I am trying to convey to you right now.

 

Since everything in this universe is 'conscious' then we must accept

CONSCIOUSNESS-SPACE-TIME as the fundamental essence of existence.

Everything in this universe has this all pervasive low level 'consciousness' that I speak of.

A rock has Consciousness, so does a flower, a picture, a triangle, even the existential

Mandelbrot Set of mathematics.

 

Patterns have conciousness. In fact thats really what you and me are, informational patterns.

We human beings are really boiled down to 'informational processing pattern/agents' We eat

food and our physical body according to our DNA converts the raw energy/food into our own 'pattern'

and it is absorbed and assimiliated to become 'us'. We are the ultimate natural 'nanotechnology' device,

far more advanced than any nanotechnology man could ever hope to achieve.

 

When something of physical matter gets organized in a complex enough manner

(like a brain) consciousness ‘leaks’ through and finds a home to occupy itself in the ‘physical realm’. The level of awareness and ability of expression of consciousness (quilia) is limited by the complexity of the physical system. So in essence, our mind/brain has TWO distinct versions and levels of 'consciousness' each overlapping the other!! The structure of our brain (being that it is a 'shape' and even shapes like a circle has low level consciousness) by itself merits low level all encompassing 'quilia/conciousness' , and yet the unique complexity of our brain also affords it a high level human 'conciousness' that is the consciousness that we know of, the version that we have come to know and love. Much like gravity is weak because it 'leaks' to other universes, I propose that quilia/low level consciousness exists in its own existential 'plane' and rapidly leaks through in massive amounts to the physical world when certain physical patterns (brain, nervous system, CPU) becomes complexed and intricate enough, much in the same way a black hole leaks gravity to other universes.

 

When we are alive (ie living in everyday high level human 'conciousness') our human conciousness overrides the low-level conciousness of the brain and body that 'we' would otherwise be aware of. This is why we can't directly experience the low level conciousness that mystics speak of, that your car, bed, or plant experiences in each and every moment. When we die our high level conciousness disintegrates and we return back to a 'low' level conciousness once again, just like how it was before we were born.

 

In that sense, we are all interconnected because the essence of every cognizing being is the one and the same. Each individual consciousness is just localized within the physical system (body casing) and thus we get the impression that

WE are indeed different separate entities in our own right. Like a raindrop thinks it is

Different from that of the ‘other’ raindrops, but all are from the ONE ocean.

 

"Consciousness" is an ambiguous term, perhaps "quilia" is truly no more than just 'information'? Language is always 'ambiguous' to some degree, but I think we are all talking about the 'same thing' here. The entire universe may have a low level "Consciousness". A rock would be on a much lower level of "Consciousness" than say a chicken, and the chicken would be on a lower level of "Consciousness" than say a human being.

 

Information itself may be "Consciousness" and 'quilia'. Perhaps patterns are self-sustained conciousness!

When a new pattern appears in the universe, a quilia is associated with it. So 'BLUE' the abstract and platonic objective 'BLUE' that is OUT THERE is itself associated with a unique singular and distinct quilia for 'Blue', and 'Red' for 'Red', a certain sensation of pain for that specific pain. etc. When a new ground pattern appears in the universe, a qualia is associated with it.

[InfiniteNow]

Okay, you're doing better, but still defining terms with themselves.

 

"What is red?"

"Well, red is red, as evidenced by it's red color."

 

It doesn't mesh. Another point of contention is that you state as fact certain claims which have no evidence. As personal opinion, they are fine, but framed as fact (and worse, as the base of your concept), they hold no water.

 

You are also still copy/pasting, and these posts should be moved to philosophy.

[Guest chen2739]

Okay, you're doing better, but still defining terms with themselves.

 

"What is red?"

"Well, red is red, as evidenced by it's red color."

 

It doesn't mesh. Another point of contention is that you state as fact certain claims which have no evidence. As personal opinion, they are fine, but framed as fact (and worse, as the base of your concept), they hold no water.

 

You are also still copy/pasting, and these posts should be moved to philosophy.

 

Any such copy/paste in my above post is simply my original work that I previously posted at other sites online. That is NOT copy and pasting if I am the owner of those thoughts/words.

 

And I am NOT defining terms with themselves. You misunderstood the point I was trying to make:

 

To someone who has NEVER seen colors in his/her life before, RED cannot possibly be conveyed in terms of language and words. RED is a symbol, a label that we use in place of the true color of RED only when we first have experienced firsthand the epiphenomen quilia of 'what it is like' to see the color RED. Thus what is the 'essence' of red? What, if taken away, would make RED no longer RED? This is the question, and the essence of RED is simply the EXPERIENCE, the 'what it is like to SEE RED' itself! Simply said, there is no way to convey the color RED really is expect for someone to actually EXPERIENCE IT FIRSTHAND her/himself.

The GOD of RED, is RED, IS RED, IS. The abstract, platonic, quilia of existential RED is the ONE and ONLY true and genuine RED, the experience of RED itself IS RED. Every other red, like THIS ONE, is simply an poor emulation, a simulation within a simulation, a corse representation and NOT the true RED ITSELF, but merely a singular distinct aspect and maniefestation of a particular instance of RED out of the infinite possible instances and varieties of RED, all from the ONE GOD OF RED.

 

 

The fundamental essence and workings of RED can be thought of as an physical informational pattern that exists in this physical universe that is correlated with the epiphenomen/quilia of the actual 'RED' itself which is not a word but the EXPERIENCE of RED. Thus the HARD PROBLEM of Consciousness can be solved by stating that quilia of RED correlates and corresponds to the physical mathematical pattern of RED. This bridges the physical and mental perfectly and leaves no gaps nor holes.

 

The epiphenomenon feeling of 'what it is like' to experience love, lust, happiness, the raw sensation of beauty, to be affected with a special,

unique, impression of pleasure, etc is simply a side-effect by-product correlation that runs parallel and correspondingly to our physical and biological counterpart.

 

When a new ground pattern appears in the universe, a qualia is associated with it.

 

Clear enough?

[InfiniteNow]

Any such copy/paste in my above post is simply my original work that I previously posted at other sites online. That is NOT copy and pasting if I am the owner of those thoughts/words.

Ummm... If I type a word, then copy and then paste it, it IS copy/pasting. I am less than optimistic to dialoguing with you on larger concepts if such a trivial one escapes you.

To someone who has NEVER seen colors in his/her life before, RED cannot possibly be conveyed in terms of language and words.

To a person who has never seen colors:

 

There is a characteristic in our perception of light and the way it reflects off objects known as color. Color is not so much a property of the object, but our of perceptual machinery like our eyes, photoreceptors, neurons, and occipital lobes. These characteristics we describe as color come in many different forms, and these forms are mostly contigent on the frequency of that light (the number of times our measurements of it peak and trough... see also photospectroscopy). The higher the frequency, the more violet or blue the light (violet and blue being distinct colors). The lower frequency is more red, another "color."

 

Colors are also generally laden with emotional attachment, and throughout society red has been associated with fire, rage, anger, passion, and all manner of other very powerful and reptilian-like instincts. Red is bold, and stirs a physiological response in the perceiver. You, not being able to see red, still have those responses, so of course can understand what I'm conveying.

 

Just did it...

 

But, we digress... Origin of the Universe... :weather_snowing:

[pmaust]

Oh yeah? And I have a eerie feeling that someone here is being a bigot.

Why don't you go back and RE-read that last long post of mine from a

more open minded point of view and you will see that I am not as so

'delusional' as you would like to believe. Objective absolute reality and truth of the totality of all existence IS what IT IS without the need of some Homo Sapien(s) discovering it, acknowledging it, proving it, accepting it, or admiring it, or using it. IT exists much like the Mandelbrot Set, its validity and existence dependent upon nothing but ITself. Whether you debate this or not, believe it or not, deny it or not, it IS what it IS, and no one and nothing can ever change it, whether you 'feel' that you like it or not.

 

Chen, please do not think that my comments were being directed at you personally or in a mean spirited way. That was not my intent. I do recognize that due to the terse way in which I replied, that what I wrote could easily be misinterpreted. I said "I have an eerie feeling that you have ascribed a set of values to consciousness that may not be deserved." Having read through the other replies including yours in this thread, I think I was correct. You do seem to be ascribing some new meanings to the word "consciousness" that is outside of our normal understanding of the words definition. I agree with Infi that this topic is probably better suited to philosophy than astronomy or cosmology.

 

I may be wrong and am certainly interested in hearing other points of view but, I suspect very strongly that "consciousness" as I understand the meaning of the word and from my lifes experience is not always a very reliable indicator of "reality". I think it is for this reason that we rely so heavily on things such as the scientific method, falsification, testing, replication, expirimentation, et cetera.

 

You said;

Objective absolute reality and truth of the totality of all existence IS what IT IS without the need of some Homo Sapien(s) discovering it, acknowledging it, proving it, accepting it, or admiring it, or using it.

 

The above statement may be true. But, it is completely meaningless. For all intent and purposes, if we don't know "it" exists, whatever "it" is, it has no meaning or value in our lives. I would submit that it only becomes interesting and meaningful once it is discovered and can be studied, understood, or utilized. For example, 83151 or 92397. The Mandelbrot Set can be created using purly randomly generated numbers in a computer program. Chaos in nature seems, well, natural. It is like the age old riddle, does a tree falling in the forest still make a sound even if there is no one around to hear it? Is there music in the spheres? Do black holes have back doors or, do they just simply cease to exist? :weather_snowing: