It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you add yourself into the universe?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Can you add yourself to the universe while being in the universe itself?

Can we be self-sustaining, self sufficient, self-subsisting beings? No, but according to Stephen Hawking in a CNN interview with Larry King, he said “the nothingness itself adds to the universe.” later on however; he mentions his beliefs, which is paraphrased by my own hearing of the interview, “science is a tool that can make god unnecessary.” If we look and analyze these two sentences, we see that Stephen Hawking contradicts himself. How? The nothingness itself is what makes life sustaining, continuing, and in fact the universe itself is need of it too. I know you think I'm wasting my time trying to beat him with a simple contradiction, but it's more than that. The understanding of what science is in terms on how I understand it, it too poses doubts about his interview. He may be crippled, and I know I'm not attacking his state of condition, but his arrogance is what I'm showing in this paper as well, and his crippled nature has something to do with it. These things are linked up to the fact; that all though he speaking with a monotone Microsoft Sam voice, his words show something nefarious in nature.

“Science is a tool that can make God unnecessary”

think of science as a program scanner. A program scanner designed to scan not only software but also hardware applications, and/or even the computer's information. If science were to say... scan for first time in your mind, what such information would you think it would discover? Science would discover that the computer known as the brain is a scientific tool as well, and that science is merely a software application under the operating system known as the mind. Because of this, To make that comment a realistic goal for mankind, we need to build technology. But, physically applying the application we know as science is how we build it. For Stephen Hawking however, he is unable to lift his hands up. The only thing functioning is his mind, and there for he's incapable of producing technology. The question should be now asked, “are we more necessary than Stephen Hawking?” But why? Well... Because we're then showing proof that we're more of a god than he is. But, for us we can't be. Even with all of our technology we're still dependant over the universe's source of energy, the nothingness itself. But is the nothingness itself God?

Free Energy. What is free energy? Free energy is any form of energy that comes with no cost, and puts out enough power, but yet keeps itself going. Isn't that something that is self-sustaining, self-sufficient, but yet self-subsisting? Is the nothingness itself free energy? Doesn't this support the theory of an infinite expanding universe? If the nothingness itself was considered to be God, wouldn't he be free energy? Can free energy be a being? Yes. In science, matter and energy are both the same. In this universe however, matter decays, and so does energy. So we as human beings take in matter in the form of food and ingest it in order to survive. So aren't we taking in energy too? Wouldn't we consider ourselves as energizing beings? But if the nothingness itself functions in the same way as the universe, wouldn't we have the nothingness deplete itself, and the destruction of the universe begin? In order for Stephen Hawking to show God He's unnecessary, he has to master the universe, and prevent that tragic happening from occurring. Is there anyone who cares to enough to support him after this paper? Maybe, but they have to prove to us they can. So the question has to be asked. “Can you add yourself into the universe while being in the universe itself?” Can you be self-sustaining, self-sufficient, but yet self-subsisting? Can you be free energy beings? And if you feel as though you can be a master of the universe, then I have a back up question to support the first, and that is, “Are you yourselves the creator, or did all of this come out of nothing?”

For if this all came out of nothing, wouldn't it the universe itself be the creator? But, since we're made up of what the universe is made up of aren't we the same as it? Aren't we the creators? But did we have a say in how the universe can be? Do we have our own galaxies to rule over, and not conquer over each other? Do we live peaceful lives in the way we desire to? Can we even determine our lives? No. So how can we be creators in a realistic way? But we're hopeful and optimistic. To be the creator is to be the master of the universe. To even back up that statement literally means you have to be God to prove it. So even Atheists themselves have something they can never conquer over. Science itself backs up most of what I said in my concept of what mistakes Stephen Hawking said.

I merely right down this paper just to show his arrogance in his comment, but I don't deny his intelligence. My two questions I feel in the end show that there has to be a creator before the initial point. My second question, “Are you Yourselves the creator, or did all of this come out of nothing?” is from the Qur’an. So I am religious in a sense because of my ability to understand my religion. I dunno, there's more I would say but I can't really fit it in together. So I'm looking just for an honest discussion with all the people here on ATS, both believers, and non-believers alike. Harsh criticism is highly accepted to me from others for learning purposes. This is my first post, and I wanted to be able to share my thoughts to you all about what I ponder about. This thread was closed due to T&C rule breaking. So I hope i don't break anything this time, and I'm positing this once more.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
According to buddhism, we are here because we want to exist. Wanting causes suffering, all the way to the point that we wouldnt be here to suffer if we hadnt wanted to exist....
im not ready to not want to exist personally



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Was this not posted like 6 hours ago?

Or was your other post deleted?

(Sorry, didn't read a single line, and I didn't read the other thread either)

And for the Title Question, you are in the universe, what you breath is the universe. You can't say you are not a part of the universe.

But I guess what you posted here, is not even a question, but something theoretical.
My mind is bullocks today.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
the question implies whether or not you can become a master of the universe by adding it (the unknown particle) into from the outside just like the nothingness itself, and be living in the universe while being here on earth while working. to basically sustain it, and maintain it at the same time is what the question is asking, based on what Stephen Hawking had said.
edit on 8/16/2012 by blackhawk420 because: fixing lines



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
"The pot is useful where the pot is not." ~The Tao Te Ching



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ypperst

(Sorry, didn't read a single line, and I didn't read the other thread either)



nice.

so "reply" was the next logical click for you, then?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Nobody wanting to reply on this topic? Was hoping to have a talk on the possibility of the main question based on this concept of free energy. Well... Any takers?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by blackhawk420
 


I just posted this on another thread:


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.


I guess the most important thing to ask yourself is, "Is this 'reality' actually real?" In this i mean, are you sure that your reality isn't merely experiential? Is there a concreteness that you can point to that defies explanation within the confines of an experience driven universe, as intimated by such strangeness as the double slit experiment, or that Lazarus of the feline world, Schrodingers Cat? Did Werner Heisenberg, when he proposed his uncertainty principle, expose man as the wizard behind the curtain?

Or are these peeks behind the curtain not showing humans, but rather what humans are in a higher sense? Do these peeks betray reality for being nothing more than an orgy of experience?

You can answer every question you posed in your OP. For every question answered, you find a dozen new ones. And that doesn't even consider the questions you should ask, but don't realize you should ask. Compound ignorance is the wild card in every well laid theory.

I would suspect the lack of response to your thread would relate to the way it is layed out in the OP. It is kind of like a wall of text that is daunting to take on. That is why that one poster i chastised said they didn't read a word of it. It was just simple "TL;DR".



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I like your reply, and it is true that most questions i posed can be answered. I thought maybe more questions can be asked and it would start a discussion. I learned a new word, thank you. Experiential. observation is where I can get most of my learning from.


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.


what i can get from this quote that relates to the OP is that, God in a sense being free energy that is expanding the universe by being the nothingness itself that Stephen Hawking theorized, or part of the nothingness (in islam being part of the unseen). We can see that experiential for us humans may be the same as God's. What makes God the all-seeing is by allowing himself to see us through our own perception of things, and by the basic levels of matter such as the Biggs Hobson particle, because he adds into the universe what's of himself. His energy. What do you think?



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I absolutely detest posts that equate semantics with science.... Science is not about clever word play. You don't PROVE ANYTHING by twisting up words into a pretzel you prove things with hard data.

It's sad that this is what the science and technology forum has become.... a place for cheap metaphysical rants cleverly semantically reworded as some sort of social commentary on the validity of science.

Maybe if you understood science better you wouldn't have to be so afraid of it.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by blackhawk420
 



It is more like the fact that human observation plays such a key role in forming our reality that when we go looking for the Creator of our reality, we find that it is us.

This brings up all manner of questions, such as how the universe can run on circular logic (that is, how a participant in the universe can also be an architect of that which it is participating within). So does this mean that part of us exists outside the universe? A soul, for example?

of course, it may be possible that what i am definind as circular logic isn't really circular logic.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join