Why does the Universe exist?

reply to post by 1littlewolf


The second was beautiful and the first is very interesting

I would offer that we are not Gods, but a reflection of what exist beyond what is finite. Implied in my reasoning is the issue of matter and energy, being a reflection of space and time.

I also feel that in order to create something one must exist outside of it.

So in order to be God one need exist outside everything that exist.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Anti-matter is a material that a table spoon of, could get us to the nearest star and back. The total cost of actually collecting that amount, constitutes the Gross National Product of the United States per year.

With regards to Dirac the term itself begs for a definition of terms, beyond and how it is normally defined.

Clearly your opinion suggest that reality can be defined in the perspective of creationism and implied is that a specific interpretation of the Bible can be justified. Looking at something from an certain angle does not in andof itself, negate another. The opinion that it does often can relate to flaws in ones own reasoning as to how things can be defined.

Critical thinking is much to do with considering that if one claims to know, then certainly one must not know.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Anti-matter is a material that a table spoon of, could get us to the nearest star and back. The total cost of actually collecting that amount, constitutes the Gross National Product of the United States per year.

With regards to Dirac the term itself begs for a definition of terms, beyond and how it is normally defined.

Clearly your opinion suggest that reality can be defined in the perspective of creationism and implied is that a specific interpretation of the Bible can be justified. Looking at something from an certain angle does not in andof itself, negate another. The opinion that it does often can relate to flaws in ones own reasoning as to how things can be defined.

Critical thinking is much to do with considering that if one claims to know, then certainly one must not know.

Any thoughts?

I tend to go back to one of my early THREADS for quotes. Here is a good one:

Augustine, from City of God

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

reply to post by Kashai


Science claims rationality, yet discounts one possibility. That is not rational at all. A creator is the most rational thought we posses, especially in light of clues left for us in symbolism and linguistics. Not only this, but sacred geometry screams for us to see the relationship between numbers and meaning on higher dimensions of existence. Consider the irony in the connections I make in the thread linked below.

You might say there are no connections, yet the story told in the Bible continues to be mirrored in all of our stories, within the related morphology of linguistics and in the actuall story that unfolds before our eyes. It's hard to deny and takes more faith to say it is false. For something that is hidden and a mystery, the enigma of the Bible just keeps on revealing itself. The law of inverse squares says that the more we know, the more we see the source of what we study. Is this happening?

THREAD to EXAMINE

reply to post by EnochWasRight


An exelent example....

Have a look ...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Kashai

 

Science claims rationality, yet discounts one possibility. That is not rational at all. A creator is the most rational thought we posses, especially in light of clues left for us in symbolism and linguistics. Not only this, but sacred geometry screams for us to see the relationship between numbers and meaning on higher dimensions of existence. Consider the irony in the connections I make in the thread linked below.

You might say there are no connections, yet the story told in the Bible continues to be mirrored in all of our stories, within the related morphology of linguistics and in the actually story that unfolds before our eyes. It's hard to deny and takes more faith to say it is false. For something that is hidden and a mystery, the enigma of the Bible just keeps on revealing itself. The law of inverse squares says that the more we know, the more we see the source of what we study. Is this happening?

THREAD to EXAMINE

edit on 17-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

I am unsure about what you say here, especially as it relates to the inverse square law.

I, for one, am a big proponent of a concept I call "fractal behavior". What I mean by this is that all behaviors are governed by the same laws of the universe that governs physics, and thus we should see some of the same concepts as fractal geometry being displayed in behaviors (for all animals, not just ours).

An excerpt from a piece I wrote on this:

Whatever “mind” created the universe created several interlaced systems, each supporting and living alongside the other. This means that each of these systems most likely follow the same rules. This would imply that the fractal design seen in the physical realm would have an analogy in the mental or behavioral realm. Especially the behavioral realm, where behaviors tend to be controlled via biological electrochemical processes (meaning your behavior is at the whims of the fractal designs of nature, or the atom in this case, and the way these molecules fit into receptors).

And the link if you are wanting to see what I was going on about.

and a nice little egghead article about the same thing, but analyzed in a less personal manner than myself.

RE: symbolism and linguistics....have you studied The Mysteries? The esoteric teachings of various cultures? Without at least a basic understanding of this, you are likely not getting a clear picture of linguistics and symbolism. Especially symbolism. Symbolism isn't always esoteric (nor is linguistics...but symbols are more prevalent). Often symbols you see are simple aesthetics.

Which is another topic in and of itself. The TRUE point of sacred geometry. The idea is that by studying mathematical relationships between things, and noticing how these patterns of numbers tend to repeat, the whole idea was that you could look into the mind of God.

And we keep doing this, even today. It is why we have the LHC, and all the expanded studies of physics. One thing we have noticed is that at the most basic levels of the universe, it is purely experiential. That is, it is tied directly to human experience. The whole "observer" concept shows that the act of observation, even ex post facto, can alter the outcome of any event. The whole Schrodingers Cat.

Thus, it seems that the deeper we look seeking the eye of God, the more we realize it is our own eyes staring back at us.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


"All of our Stories"

According to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

listverse.com...

A difference being when in history they were offered.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Check my threads. The mysteries are a reflection of the story of Nimrod and Babel. When the languages were cut up, the story was then woven into myth in the Mystery Schools as Osiris and Isis. Each language and nation had their own version. The original story was give to Adam and passed from word to mouth. The twins in the Bible are reflective of good and evil making the one choice they have. The choice is the will to give and receive or the will to take. They Mystery School Religion is the true thread of knowledge in a mirror. God wrote the entire story for us to read within mathematics, Geometry and the relationship of archetypal pre-existent shapes within their counterparts in nature. The truth is not hard to see if you do what Plato suggests. Intelligence is is four stages. The bridge is virtue. Why are the twins of religion seen by the Mystery Schools and the Christian religion of Abrahamic tradition?

Why did God say, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated." He said this to reflect the twins. All symbols reduce to their source. In the case of our reality, the source is the electron and the proton in a balanced state of positive and negative. Hydrogen only has one proton and one electron, but no neutron. All of what we know and love is E-MC2. Light, Energy, Mass. The trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Light is not a duality of particle and wave as science suggests. It is Light, Wave and Consciousness. This is the starting point at the hydrogen bond that creates all other bonds from wave function collapse. It takes an observer on both sides to produce what is observed. The process is where we start with the twins. Sun and Moon. Sperm and Egg. Left and Right. Male and Female. Soul and Spirit. Dog and Cat. It's all the parallel motion of electron and proton with a neutral in the middle.

We must choose. I like reading the material in the Mystery School documents. The problem is that this is the opposite religion and finds its roots in Esau. Nimrod is from Esau. Jesus is in line with Jacob. We must choose and your entire sequence of choices to collapse the wave is reflected in our choice to give and receive or take. Knowledge can be taken. The fruit it produces is technology. Our technology takes. What does that make its designer? One of the two thieves on the cross. One repented and one kept on building his own temple as a thief. They were on either side of the neutral. Proton, Neutron and Electron. God calls the the saints the ELECT. Electrons are negative. Why are God's people called the elect? It is outside the proton and neutron and being brought in. Separation. We are negatively charged and must be corrected to a positive charge. You can keep going with the analogy.

Jesus said the path is narrow and in the middle. In the nucleolus. It's not exoteric church dogma and it's not esoteric spirituality. It's the middle way of truth between both extremes.

Electrons have virtually no mass, are negatively electrically charged and are to be found orbiting an atoms nucleus in what are called electron shells.

Protons and Neutrons are to be found the the atoms nucleus and they have mass.
Neutrons have no electrical charge while Protons are positively charged. For every Proton to be found in an atom's nucleus, there is a matching electron in one of the electron shells so that overall the + and - electrical charges balance out. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines what element that atom makes.

Neutrons stabilize the atom's nucleolus by separating the + charge protons and their number may vary in an atom - a variation in the number of neutrons in the nucleus with a given number of protons gives rise to atomic isotopes. Neutrons also have no charge.


Protons and Neutrons are located in the nucleus. Protons=Positive. Neutrons=no charge. Electron=E-=Negatively charge.

Read more: wiki.answers.com...

reply to post by EnochWasRight


In some aspects you and I are in near perfect agreement. Especially on your correlation of the numbers 2 and 3. You can make it more basic than you have, and I usually don't extrapolate as far as you do. But the basic premise is there.

I might not agree with other parts of what you are saying. I will have to see....but we will do that on one of your threads.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


According to the Holy Bible...

God is Love
Jesus is Peace
The Holy Spirit is Happiness

True love cannot exit without true peace or happiness and as a result all three are one....

Thoughts upon a mystery...


There is an aspect to reality where emotions take form and what is subjective is what humans commonly accept as solid.

Suggesting, that despite we are alive we are somehow reflected in heaven. An analogy respective of the events related in the account of Perseus(Greek mythology) were Zeus picks up a statue of one man...

That man having been represented in Heaven as he is capable of love....

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by chr0naut

 

"Zero-point energy should arise mathematically from the uncertainty principle's application to existing theory, which implies that pre-existent matter is not required"

regardless,, we are energy/matter quantum and atomic, chemical, elemental and biologic,, we measure the "stuff" which exists which is closely related to our selves in terms of base structures and components,.,. all of this stuff is constantly moving through space and time,,, you would think we can retrieve energy from a big dam like structure satellite hanging in space,, like you feel preasure against your hand when you hold it out the window of a car,,,

so again,,,, how do we know we are ever measuring any aspect of true "space",, and not just measuring results of us being energy,, measuring energy, in what is space?

Of course, the true answer to this is that we can't know.

We build a theoretical understanding of some facet of reality, based upon what we already know, and we test that theory with experiments.

When we are fairly sure we have an understanding that is stable enough (actually, most times before then), we move on to the next conundrum that this "understanding" presents. In this way, we acquire knowledge that follows a particular paradigm.

Every now and then a paradigm breaking idea comes along (like Relativity all those years ago) and we return to the drawing board asking what went wrong and we also face the new conundrums, too.

In this way our knowledge totters forward and the "laws" of yesterday become a subset of new, more comprehensive "laws".

Ultimately, there are no guarantees.

Also, Goedel's Incompleteness theorem hints that we can never actually attain a complete and unambiguous knowledge anyway.

Science offers that if you compress many atoms into a small enough space and then implode the structure they are encased in, a rather large amount of energy will be released. This is because the pressure will be such that at least one atom will split and its mass will to some extent be coverted to energy, related to to the speed of light squared.

c^2= (d/t)^2 = d^2/t^2 = (d^2) x (1/t^2)

Time is squared ....

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
Science offers that if you compress many atoms into a small enough space and then implode the structure they are encased in, a rather large amount of energy will be released. This is because the pressure will be such that at least one atom will split and its mass will to some extent be coverted to energy, related to to the speed of light squared.

c^2= (d/t)^2 = d^2/t^2 = (d^2) x (1/t^2)

Time is squared ....

Any thoughts?

ok so you described an atom bomb,.,.,.,., what actually happens? what form is the energy released in? is it like many many many particles all crashing into each other with little amount of mass, but are sped up to such high speeds the mass is increased and released as physical energy? how does an atom bomb make such a huge explosion and release of energy?

sorry my googles not working right now

reply to post by Kashai

Originally posted by Kashai

The second was beautiful and the first is very interesting

I would offer that we are not Gods, but a reflection of what exist beyond what is finite. Implied in my reasoning is the issue of matter and energy, being a reflection of space and time.

Cheers. This is why I sometimes like to weaving my musings into threads such as the ones I showed you. Makes it all seem even more amazing if that's possible.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what you mean in your second sentence though unfortunately....

But what I’m getting at is if we assume matter is simply energy and it is built upon a substrate of quantum particles, particles which have been shown to be influenced (at the very least) by human consciousness; essentially we can break the material world down to different sets of awarenesses existing within a process which corresponds to the universe as we perceive it today.

Now I am a believer in reincarnation and the existence of what many call a spirit or soul; but which I simply term an awareness. If time and space are essentially meaningless (as they appear to be within the quantum substrate upon which the physical world is built), it seems logical to me that there is in fact only one awareness actually in existence.

It is in fact only through our material senses (which themselves are merely tools with limitations) through which we currently perceive the process (being the physical universe) do we appear to be separate sets of awareness which exist on an illusory timeline, separated by illusory space.

I also feel that in order to create something one must exist outside of it.

So in order to be God one need exist outside everything that exist.

Any thoughts?

As I said it’s not so much about ‘creating’, more about simply changing forms as a reflection of conscious thought and the natural laws which govern this.

To use a crude example, our bodies are constantly changing forms within us (though not quite at the quantum/big bang to universe scale.) through both our decisions made and natural bodily functions. Essentially the universe is ‘God’s body’.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

According to the Holy Bible...

God is Love
Jesus is Peace
The Holy Spirit is Happiness

True love cannot exit without true peace or happiness and as a result all three are one....

Thoughts upon a mystery...


There is an aspect to reality where emotions take form and what is subjective is what humans commonly accept as solid.

Suggesting, that despite we are alive we are somehow reflected in heaven. An analogy respective of the events related in the account of Perseus(Greek mythology) were Zeus picks up a statue of one man...

That man having been represented in Heaven as he is capable of love....

Any thoughts?

Symbols have more than one meaning. They are reflective of language and the usage of words. Context carries the meaning by subject. The picture of heaven is what an image carries. The image represents what it was take from. A camera is an example of the transition point between the actual and the image. The Trinity is the same.

------------

Hebrews 09

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

-----------

We are waiting here in the copy. Listen to the whole chapter and read the symbols as words around the context that is presented. AUDIO

Why does the universe exist?
Because God wished to behold God.
Sacred geometries are the representation of that self-image, captured by mystics of different religions in altered states of consciousness.
They have now been proven to be mathematically equivalent, as a result of which the universal paradigm underlying all levels of reality, including the space-time continuum and its physics, has now been deciphered and its beautiful perfection unveiled.
smphillips.8m.com...

reply to post by Kashai

heck op, you are all gobbledegooky there. Lol
what specifics are you looking for?

reply to post by 1littlewolf


I hope you are not optimistic about reincarnation.
A perfect prison is one where you die there to be reborn and killed again there.

The quality of Existence is "To Exist". That is it.

Once you start asking "Why", that becomes a question that can only be formulated by the brain and does not exist in this simple reality.

We can find out "How" the universe came to exist, but never "Why" because there is no purpose, existence only has one quality and that is - to exist.

Originally posted by arpgme
The quality of Existence is "To Exist". That is it.

Once you start asking "Why", that becomes a question that can only be formulated by the brain and does not exist in this simple reality.

We can find out "How" the universe came to exist, but never "Why" because there is no purpose, existence only has one quality and that is - to exist.

how do you explain the infinite complexity of this simple reality?

how do you explain all the purposes of things that exist? in ideas of metaphysical, philosophical, archetypical, geometry, dimension,

can a reason, purpose, meaning, value ever exist? or there is nothing that can ever be real?,,, anything that ever exists must be arbitrary and not grounded in anything absolute for absolutes are impossible to ever/always exist?

is this what your saying?