When Did Matter Make Its First "Choice?"

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
At what point did matter make its first "decision?" And what was the process that enabled such a movement?

We see many things, including us, that are bound to the laws of nature. However, even a child can defy gravity by jumping, even if only for a moment.

There had to be that first moment where a collection of matter decided that it would go in a different direction than the overall laws of physics would have suggested up to that point.

On a different scale, it would be like a planet suddenly going out of orbit. It seems to me that it would be a defining event for creating the universe and world as we know it. Yet, I do not see it approached specifically. It is more of a "given" through whatever ideology is supported by the exploring individual.

But, when did a collection of mass decide to go out of its "orbit?" What size would this mass be, and what do you think was the process leading up to that first momentous occasion?




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


I don't know if I really grasp your question but here is my 2 cents:

I strongly believe that in the beginning we were all one with the ultimate source of energy. The reason why we decided to separate can be interpreted and debated in a lot of ways.

Where I find my own personnal answer is in one important lesson life teaches us very quickly in life: the importance of appreciating what we have... because you know, we tend not to appreciate what we acquire and tend to desire what we don't possess.

So that lead me to start to believe that before the universe of matter came to birth, we were all perfection. Maybe we weren't really able to value the importance of what we had, because it was infinite and perfect. That might be one of the reason that matter decided to split and distance itselfs from the ultimate source. To go learn and remember how beautiful life and creation is.

But the main goal is to go back to this source.

edit on 2-11-2013 by St0rD because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Things only appear to matter if there is someone it matters to.
Existence is a flowing ever changing formless forming - it only appears as solid things to something that thinks it is a thing.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


A scientist would say that everything which has unfolded
is a result of initial conditions after the 'big bang' and
also throw in quantum fluctuations to throw in even
more randomness as well as the laws of thermodynamics
(entropy in this case) to 'wind everything down'.

Using that model, no decisions are made; just a continuing
dynamic process. No need to anthropomorphize matter..

Mystics and religious people would say all sorts of stuff..
nearly all of which would require anthropomorphizing
the the laws of nature.. and since humans aren't the
center of the universe, that would seem to be a poor
strategy.... it's very hard to speak credibly on this
subject, due to 'selection bias' and other logical
errors that we are all so prone to make.

All that said, I msyelf have a model that would answer
your question in less rigid terms than pure reductionist
materialism, mysticism or religion, but I don't share it.

KPB



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

St0rD
I strongly believe that in the beginning we were all one with the ultimate source of energy. The reason why we decided to separate can be interpreted and debated in a lot of ways.


Agreed.


Where I find my own personnal answer is in one important lesson life teaches us very quickly in life: the importance of appreciating what we have... because you know, we tend not to appreciate what we acquire and tend to desire what we don't possess.

So that lead me to start to believe that before the universe of matter came to birth, we were all perfection. Maybe we weren't really able to value the importance of what we had, because it was infinite and perfect. That might be one of the reason that matter decided to split and distance itselfs from the ultimate source. To go learn and remember how beautiful life and creation is.

But the main goal is to go back to this source.


So, let me clarify exactly what I am speaking about and the context I am attempting to understand the topic within.

I am speaking strictly on the growth of matter through time. There is debate about how it all happened "in the beginning," or if there even was a "beginning" at all. But, for things residing within the constraints of space-time (I do not believe everything is bound by it), what physical processes allowed matter to decide to go left when its movement was dictated by patterns (that we now know as physics) to go to the right.

Now, of course, you have the idea that it is all according to an overall pattern, but that is not particularly relevant to the point. Regardless of if that choice was pre-ordained (rendering choice a mere human concept), there was still deciding moment when a collection of matter went a different way than the framework of physics would suggest.

To clarify, say the universe started with the big bang (also introducing the "main" forces of nature; Strong, Weak, Gravity, etc) as matter fractaled out according to this framework it started to create stars, galaxies, planets, and plenty of other objects. However, these simply flow according to the pattern we know as physics. A planet does not suddenly drop out of orbit, or decide to go left or right. However, some forms of matter do, and while this is likely to be part of an even more encompassing framework.. there had to be that single first moment that it began. Regardless of whether or not we are eternal, or such great philosophical queries, there was a single moment where something was able to move left instead of right in the physical realm. Unless everything we know about the formation of the world around us is false, which is also a possibility.

Ill discuss my own view on it after the thread has decided to grow or die according to our choices.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I fail to see how that is on topic, but perhaps I am not making the topic as clear as it could be.

Would you mind clarifying how you feel that pertains to the OP?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

KellyPrettyBear
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


A scientist would say that everything which has unfolded
is a result of initial conditions after the 'big bang' and
also throw in quantum fluctuations to throw in even
more randomness as well as the laws of thermodynamics
(entropy in this case) to 'wind everything down'.

Using that model, no decisions are made; just a continuing
dynamic process. No need to anthropomorphize matter..


I am actually doing the reverse, though it is subtle. I am including ourselves as simply different forms of matter, since we are.


Mystics and religious people would say all sorts of stuff..
nearly all of which would require anthropomorphizing
the the laws of nature.. and since humans aren't the
center of the universe, that would seem to be a poor
strategy.... it's very hard to speak credibly on this
subject, due to 'selection bias' and other logical
errors that we are all so prone to make.


I think I am going to need to think about how to clarify my point, it seems to be missed entirely by those responding.


All that said, I msyelf have a model that would answer
your question in less rigid terms than pure reductionist
materialism, mysticism or religion, but I don't share it.


I am not seeking answers, but discussion. If you do not wish to share, then why mention anything at all? You tease!



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
When it started to...mind...
Then things started to...matter...

Å99



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Serdgiam
Would you mind clarifying how you feel that pertains to the OP?

You speak of 'matter' but what seems to be mattering?

All there is is the image that is appearing here and now and it is constantly changing, morphing, never the same.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

akushla99
When it started to...mind...
Then things started to...matter...

Å99

Totally agree.
To mind is to matter.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Itisnowagain

akushla99
When it started to...mind...
Then things started to...matter...

Å99

Totally agree.
To mind is to matter.


Haha..I just read through the other responses after I'd posted...it may be as I've said INA...what we're sayin' isn't that different...



Å99



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

akushla99
When it started to...mind...
Then things started to...matter...

Å99


If so, then when did that happen and what were the processes leading up to it?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Perhaps I should have posted in the science forum to make the context a bit more clear..



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Serdgiam

KellyPrettyBear
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


A scientist would say that everything which has unfolded
is a result of initial conditions after the 'big bang' and
also throw in quantum fluctuations to throw in even
more randomness as well as the laws of thermodynamics
(entropy in this case) to 'wind everything down'.

Using that model, no decisions are made; just a continuing
dynamic process. No need to anthropomorphize matter..


I am actually doing the reverse, though it is subtle. I am including ourselves as simply different forms of matter, since we are.


Mystics and religious people would say all sorts of stuff..
nearly all of which would require anthropomorphizing
the the laws of nature.. and since humans aren't the
center of the universe, that would seem to be a poor
strategy.... it's very hard to speak credibly on this
subject, due to 'selection bias' and other logical
errors that we are all so prone to make.



I am not seeking answers, but discussion. If you do not wish to share, then why mention anything at all? You tease!


I am not seeking answers, but discussion. If you do not wish to share, then why mention anything at all? You tease!


You are wise to include us as just 'different forms of matter',
because that is correct. Now in this case 'matter' means a
little more than a closed-minded materialist would think.

As a matter of fact, big tease that I am, I'll flat out say, that
when one understands the very topic you are discussing..
then a million other things suddenly fall into place and then
you can be a huge tease.

From my view.. providing some information and feedback,
but leaving some things unsaid and 'teasing' is a very valid
way to propel a convesation foreward, yes? It gets people
thinking "just what is that teasing asshole saying"? That
thinking which is caused is actually more valuable than
any information which may be provided.

But yes.. your initial post was pretty obscure.. perhaps
you can take another go at it.

KPB



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Serdgiam

akushla99
When it started to...mind...
Then things started to...matter...

Å99


If so, then when did that happen and what were the processes leading up to it?


People tend to have tunnel vision.. they consider serial
processing to support social status to be 'mind'. You are
meaning mind in a completely different way.

KPB



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Serdgiam

akushla99
When it started to...mind...
Then things started to...matter...

Å99


If so, then when did that happen and what were the processes leading up to it?


In context...that's a loaded question.

If you're asking for a timeline based answer, I can't do that...
If you're asking for 'when did it begin to matter in our neck of the woods'...quasi-metaphysical discussion...

Short answer (without complicating it) is...it doesn't 'matter', if there is no mind to...and this applies even today concerning the most mundane question of whether that tree in the forest makes a sound...

That's my 'take'...

Å99



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Serdgiam
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Perhaps I should have posted in the science forum to make the context a bit more clear..


'Science' won't be able to tell you this...

Å99



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Serdgiam

akushla99
When it started to...mind...
Then things started to...matter...

Å99


If so, then when did that happen and what were the processes leading up to it?

Why does anything happen? There is an idea that the past made something happen but it is all happening now.
The arising of apparent existence (that which is being seen now) is arising at the same time as that which is seeing the apparent existence (that which does not appear to exist - non existence).

There is non existence and existence now - ever present. There is nothing else as it is all there is.

edit on 2-11-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


In my opinion....

Nature is repetition with slight variance. Designs where the variances are successful go onto produce more of its kind tweaked slightly each time in an attempt to produce a better version than what came before. This doesn't always produce the desired outcome but nature has an abundance of life to work with. Nature goes beyond this tiny cell of life we call home.

It was and has always been in the nature of matter to change.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   

KellyPrettyBear
You are wise to include us as just 'different forms of matter',
because that is correct. Now in this case 'matter' means a
little more than a closed-minded materialist would think.

As a matter of fact, big tease that I am, I'll flat out say, that
when one understands the very topic you are discussing..
then a million other things suddenly fall into place and then
you can be a huge tease.


Ill will assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are aware that just because someone asks a questions doesnt mean they dont have an answer. It does seem many are completely unaware of such a thing, so perhaps I am wrong.


From my view.. providing some information and feedback,
but leaving some things unsaid and 'teasing' is a very valid
way to propel a convesation foreward, yes? It gets people
thinking "just what is that teasing asshole saying"? That
thinking which is caused is actually more valuable than
any information which may be provided.


Well, the issue is that there is no "catchphrase" to this moment, which is why I posted it in philosophy. But, I have already asked for it to be moved to science because, perhaps, I am unaware of some area of study that pertains to this topic.


But yes.. your initial post was pretty obscure.. perhaps
you can take another go at it.


I did it in a specific way to illuminate specific perspectives. People tend to play a game that they are unaware of.. perhaps I just placed the "board" in a mall when I should have set it down in a park.
I love the paradox between the last two quotes from you though!





new topics
 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join