The Genesis of Everything

So, I've decided to hand you folks what the marketing world calls a "loss leader". What a loss leader is, basically, is a freebee designed to attract potential customers to a larger offering. Like a free iPhone if you sign up for three years of network service. We all see companies do that, and this is what I've decided to do. Now, this offering has real value, and for some it has extreme value. Of course, for others, it has no value at all, but that's how it goes with loss leaders. Personally, I have no use for a new iPhone, and that loss leader has no capacity to draw me in at all. This means that I realize that my give-away will only have value to a percentage of people who receive it, and I'm okay with that. In fact, I'm extremely realistic about the value of this information. That means that you're wasting your time if you feel that flaming over this reveal will mean anything to me. Believe me, you probably couldn't be unique in your criticism if you worked hard on only that, so relax and enjoy the existence of an alternative view without the histrionics over how much it violates your existential center. It's just a view, and can't bite you or anyone you know or love.

I made a statement some months ago that I would reveal how physical existence emerged from absolutely nothing once my book was finally published, and I got the go-ahead from the folks legally associated with its release. Well, I got that okay, and here it is. This version will be somewhat abbreviated, since the book's version takes (all in all) about 20,000 words to properly present with all the scribbles and factorings laid out, as is the case in the book. Lots of logic involved in this examination, and all of it must be thoroughly detailed for the reveal to have any credibility. But that's the book's purpose, and this isn't the book.

This version does, however, lay it all out in full, and does give the reader a good sense of how very different reality actually is than how we generally assume it to be. After all, how intuitive is it to accept the fact that our corporeal structures are 99.999% space between things rotating around other things? Not very. And yet, any 1st year physics major knows this to be true. The fact is that reality isn't much like what we are able to perceive as epitome expressions of progressive development. Our point of view is much to skewed due to what we are within the whole of reality.

One last point I need to make before I begin, is that reality exists as only physical, and I know that most people reject this assertion. Then again, most people only think of corporeal matter as physical, and that's simply not true. There are new plasma varieties that have been discovered, and even a form of matter that hasn't been named yet, was created - for only a handful of seconds - when a researcher bombarded a material with radiation. The point is that we are molecular forms of physical existence, but molecular existence is quite a ways down the progressive development chain from where physical existence got its start. That means that there are - very likely - other forms of physical development, and probably some that we will never be able to perceive as molecular carbon-based life forms.

With that in mind, here's how physical existence began....

In the beginning there wasn't even nothing, since the defined truth of nothing did not exist. And yet, there was a need. The need to define what had yet to be defined.

We know, in retrospect, that there was nothing. We know now that this was true. But, it took Absolute Truth, the pre-existential, pre-contextual qualification that literally rests between the qualified physical something and its accurate depiction, to allow this nothing be to defined as being what nothing is, a definite something in a true sense of raw conceptual identity. That required a determination - that could only be made by Truth's relative dynamic, Absolute Logic - that this existential void was truly nothing.

That determination – when Absolute Logic (the necessary, active qualifier that defines the passive Absolute Truth as the foundational qualification) determined that "if there is nothing in existence, then nothing exists" (the first establishment of a qualified something that could be put into a specific context) – became the first instance of change.

The absence of the existence of anything was now the true existence of nothing, and that change (causation) actively launched the fact of that specific change as information, which – in turn – established that fact (that causation creates information) as information. As a result of that first change – with its occurrence creating two facts that would always be facts – physical existence, in the form of clearly existent information that will always exist, was now a true fact in itself.

The existence of each eternal fact (information) in a direct contextual relationship with the other, immediately launched Truth’s own comparative state - Absolute Reality – and presented it as the definitive screen against which all that will ever exist is contrasted. This emergence established Reality as a third - the impact of Truth and Logic now that the physical exists – creating the Trinity of Absolutes. It was upon this foundation that physical existence would continue to emerge and progress as one or the other of only two basic forms; either Causation or Information.

And from there on it got pretty complicated.

Now, I realize that this suggests that physical existence - at the indivisible unit level - consists of only activity and information, and yes, this is what it's supposed to suggest. String Theory hasn't gotten to it yet, but that's where it's going when they all get done halving things and finally get to the very bottom of it all.

I also realize that I can't offer any formulas to prove this, but that's due to the fact that this is pre-elemental existence, and that means pre-physics and pre-math and pre-formula depictions. It takes logic to get here. It also takes believing that this genesis can be known by the human mind.

One last thing it takes is the freedom to look past the assumption that a supreme intellect is necessary for the development of intelligent life. It's not. That said, we don't reside in the foundational contextual environment, so its okay to believe in an author. It believes in you.

I'm interested in what you have to say about this, and I'm bulletproof, so have fun. Be aware that I have done my homework, and walking out the door with this bit of perspective for show and tell is not something that I do frivolously. I can defend everything that I suggest, and I can do it without pointing to spirits channeling through me or Jesus making cameo appearances in my room at night. The logic is pretty compelling, and the whole of it is relatively uncomplicated - as it'd have to be considering the extremely primitive issue being discussed.

Thanks for reading this far.

ok...is this your "automechanics" explanation of the universe? Im pretty sure I read that from one of your posts.

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior
ok...is this your "automechanics" explanation of the universe? Im pretty sure I read that from one of your posts.

Just the tip of that iceberg. Once physical existence gets introduced, the existential survival imperative expressions (both Masculine and Feminine) start directing the action (personificationally speaking, of course) and the contextual relationships start piling up rapidly.

It really is like walking someone through an internal combustion engine for the most part. Fairly simple conceptually, but extremely dense in how it all layers depending on what you're dealing with.

Apparantly you have to be smarter than I am to have any idea of what was said.

reply to post by NorEaster


Apparently random half-philosophies are better at defining the origin of the universe than science.

I've yet to find a single scientific thought that says there was ever 'nothing'.

You've already lost on that point.

Certainly a valiant, if futile, effort:

Originally posted by NorEaster
With that in mind,

Hold it.

In what "mind"?

What is the origin of this "mind"?

And do thoughts exist "in" the "mind"?

How many thoughts can exist "in" the "mind" before there is no more room and the "mind" must push out some thoughts in order to make room for more thoughts?

here's how physical existence began....

So, the physical existence, then, exists after the existence of the "mind" in which we are, apparently, 'keeping' something or other?

In the beginning there wasn't even nothing, since the defined truth of nothing did not exist.

Truth is a category of thought implying the existence of falsehood as well as the existence of a 'thinker'. Where, then, did this 'thinker' and its consciousness come from which is attempting to explain how "the physical existence began"?

And yet, there was a need. The need to define what had yet to be defined.

Perhaps the consciousness of the 'thinker' feels such a "need". I don't.

We know, in retrospect, that there was nothing.

I don't know that. Moreover, how can you claim to speak for anyone other than yourself? Perhaps you know something or other in retrospect. That does not mean that anyone else does.

We know now that this was true.

I don't know that. Neither do I know what is the truth. It has not yet been differentiated from falsehood by definition.

But, it took Absolute Truth, the pre-existential, pre-contextual qualification that literally rests between the qualified physical something and its accurate depiction, to allow this nothing be to defined as being what nothing is, a definite something in a true sense of raw conceptual identity. That required a determination - that could only be made by Truth's relative dynamic, Absolute Logic - that this existential void was truly nothing.

Hold it. Hold it. Hold it.

I don't even know what vanilla type truth is before you are going on to "Absolute Truth" and then "Absolute Logic". (Is there any other kind?) And how do you differentiate regular, vanilla type truth from both "Absolute Truth" and "Absolute Logic"?

That determination – when Absolute Logic (the necessary, active qualifier that defines the passive Absolute Truth

This implies, of course, the existence of an active Absolute Truth...

By which is meant precisely what? and how are they differentiated?

as the foundational qualification) determined that "if there is nothing in existence, then nothing exists" (the first establishment of a qualified something that could be put into a specific context) – became the first instance of change.

Says, of course, the 'thinker' while simulaneously ignoring both the origin of the 'thinker' and the origin of the "self" prior to the 'thinker'.

The absence of the existence of anything was now the true existence of nothing, and that change (causation)

Hold it.

Causation implies time going only in one direction; that is, causes must precede their effects. And something that occurs after something else in time cannot be the cause but only the effect of what occurred prior in time.

actively launched the fact of that specific change as information, which – in turn – established that fact (that causation creates information) as information.

Causation and time did not create the consciousness of the 'thinker'. Rather, it was the consciousness of the 'thinker' which created both time and causation. So, the question is "What caused the creation of the consciousness of the 'thinker'?" And "What caused the consciousness of the "self" which exists prior to the consciousness of the 'thinker'?".

Answer: the 'thinker' was caused by the thought of the 'thinker' which 'thought' the thought of the 'thinker' into existence in order to 'think' the thought of the 'thinker', etc.

The "self", on the other hand, was caused by the 'movement' of self-reflection by which the "self" reflected upon nothing in order to create the "self" to perform the 'movement' of self-reflection to create the "self" in order to perform the 'movement' of self-reflection creating itself.

Truly, a "no-brainer".

As a result of that first change – with its occurrence creating two facts that would always be facts – physical existence, in the form of clearly existent information that will always exist, was now a true fact in itself.

And what, then, are the consciousness of the 'thinker' and the "self"?

Illusions?

The existence of each eternal fact (information) in a direct contextual relationship with the other, immediately launched Truth’s own comparative state - Absolute Reality – and presented it as the definitive screen against which all that will ever exist is contrasted. This emergence established Reality as a third - the impact of Truth and Logic now that the physical exists – creating the Trinity of Absolutes. It was upon this foundation that physical existence would continue to emerge and progress as one or the other of only two basic forms; either Causation or Information.

All of this exists exclusively at the level of thought.

It appears to have no relationship whatsoever to the real world in which consciousness is required both to be aware of the physical reality and to attempt a description of the origin of that physical reality.

Michael

reply to post by NorEaster


I can only lol at your armchair philosophy. Stringing together a bunch of complicated words in the hopes that the resulting sentence actually means something substantial is a good way to pass the time.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Apparently random half-philosophies are better at defining the origin of the universe than science.

I've yet to find a single scientific thought that says there was ever 'nothing'.

You've already lost on that point.

Haha, Professor Darwin is not amused by your armchair philosophy. FIFTY POINTS FOR GRYFFINDOR!

Originally posted by sykickvision
Apparantly you have to be smarter than I am to have any idea of what was said.

Really? How so?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Apparently random half-philosophies are better at defining the origin of the universe than science.

I've yet to find a single scientific thought that says there was ever 'nothing'.

You've already lost on that point.

Pre-science is not science. Science is the study of what exists that can be replicated or directly observed. Yes, you won't find science here, because there's no possible - or reasonable - connection between science and the genesis of physical existence.

Even physics - the interplay of molecular matter - is down the development chain, and well past the focus of this presentation.

What is achieved here, however, is a plausible theory concerning the emergence of something from an absolute physical void. Physics and science has no capacity for such a theory, since both are limited to the examination of a previously established something.

Oh, and logic demands a previous nothing. In fact, it demands a pre-nothing, since nothing is a conceptual something. No, I didn't lose on that point. That point is logically airtight.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Certainly a valiant, if futile, effort:

Originally posted by NorEaster
With that in mind,

Hold it.

In what "mind"?

What is the origin of this "mind"?

And do thoughts exist "in" the "mind"?

How many thoughts can exist "in" the "mind" before there is no more room and the "mind" must push out some thoughts in order to make room for more thoughts?

So, you can't separate the preamble from the presentation? This should be an interesting evaluation.

here's how physical existence began....

So, the physical existence, then, exists after the existence of the "mind" in which we are, apparently, 'keeping' something or other?

Fascinating. You became lost before even getting to the presentation.

In the beginning there wasn't even nothing, since the defined truth of nothing did not exist.

Truth is a category of thought implying the existence of falsehood as well as the existence of a 'thinker'. Where, then, did this 'thinker' and its consciousness come from which is attempting to explain how "the physical existence began"?

This is actually not true. There is a definitive "yes" as well as a definitive "no" when it comes to the nature of physical existence. If this were not true then you would not be capable of challenging it as a notion. Your cells would not have had a capacity for development - no obvious capacity for physical structure or consistent progression of any form whatsoever - and your magnificent intellect would not have had any basis for pondering the notion of "mind". There are observable aspects and then there are the direct and indirect implications of those observable aspects. All present reality to the observer. Truth exist. Not physically, but as the definitive, pre-contextual stability that is directly implied by the observable fact that structured development is completely impossible without it.

And yet, there was a need. The need to define what had yet to be defined.

Perhaps the consciousness of the 'thinker' feels such a "need". I don't.

Actually, the need existed, since the absence of existence was a fact that had yet to be established. The "relationship" (necessary personification, sorry) between Logic and Truth required that the incompatible "not an absence of existence, while not existence" be rectified. A little mindbending but not incompatible with what we know of existence as it sits right in front of us. As I stated, there is the observable and there is the implication of the observable. If we insist on dismissing the implication, then we might as well dismiss the observed. Both exist as equally instructive.

We know, in retrospect, that there was nothing.

I don't know that. Moreover, how can you claim to speak for anyone other than yourself? Perhaps you know something or other in retrospect. That does not mean that anyone else does.

Your statement only means that you don't. I can accept that you don't know that there was ever nothing.

We know now that this was true.

I don't know that. Neither do I know what is the truth. It has not yet been differentiated from falsehood by definition.

Again, you are enjoying a little semantics fun, which is fine. In the book, I devote an entire section to the establishment of terms related only to the examination, and this clears up the issue of semantics. The word Truth is clearly defined and limited (using one of the accepted dictionary definitions, of course) to how it can be used as a term. This examination is that precise, and yes, I saw no value in presenting 15,000 words concerning that establishment of terms in this loss leader.

But, it took Absolute Truth, the pre-existential, pre-contextual qualification that literally rests between the qualified physical something and its accurate depiction, to allow this nothing be to defined as being what nothing is, a definite something in a true sense of raw conceptual identity. That required a determination - that could only be made by Truth's relative dynamic, Absolute Logic - that this existential void was truly nothing.

Hold it. Hold it. Hold it.

I don't even know what vanilla type truth is before you are going on to "Absolute Truth" and then "Absolute Logic". (Is there any other kind?) And how do you differentiate regular, vanilla type truth from both "Absolute Truth" and "Absolute Logic"?

My little Webster's Family Dictionary defines absolute as "Existing independently; not affected by internal or external context; ultimate; intrinsic". Before there was anything to affect anything, absolute was the state of the definitive qualification. Once physical existence emerged, Truth and Logic could (when applicable) be relative - what you refer to as "vanilla". My dictionary defines relative as "Existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else".

I provide a pretty fun analogy to help illustrate the difference between Absolute and Relative through a simple logic equation (A+B=C, therefore C-B=A) that's been affected by the introduction of contextual identity (Coffee + Chocolate = Mocha, therefore Mocha - Chocolate = Coffee) that makes that simple equation untrue and physically impossible. At least it's impossible in a physical realm where coffee, chocolate and mocha actually exist and are affected by the physics involving the nature of solutions versus suspensions. The non-contextual equation is correct, whereas the contextually affected statement (not an equation) is unrealistic. This is the difference between - let's say - Absolute Logic and Relative Logic. Same with both versions of Truth. One is free of the influence of context, while the other is the result of contextual influence.

That determination – when Absolute Logic (the necessary, active qualifier that defines the passive Absolute Truth

This implies, of course, the existence of an active Absolute Truth...


By which is meant precisely what? and how are they differentiated?

There is no active Truth of any sort. You didn't understand that implication? I thought I was being painfully obvious with that clarification. Maybe even unnecessarily so. It's always hard to know how careful to be with people when reiterating the obvious.

as the foundational qualification) determined that "if there is nothing in existence, then nothing exists" (the first establishment of a qualified something that could be put into a specific context) – became the first instance of change.

Says, of course, the 'thinker' while simulaneously ignoring both the origin of the 'thinker' and the origin of the "self" prior to the 'thinker'.

There was no thinker when this occurred. I thought the implication was clearly presented. Again, it amazes me when I completely misunderstand the capacity of people to ignore the obvious. Nowhere in this presentation did I imply that a thinker was present. This is well before the emergence of Intellect. Matter hasn't even developed yet. Raw unit information is just about to emerge. Certainly full conscious thought hasn't emerged before anything of physical structure has been established. That'd be putting the caboose before the train.

The absence of the existence of anything was now the true existence of nothing, and that change (causation)

Hold it.

Causation implies time going only in one direction; that is, causes must precede their effects. And something that occurs after something else in time cannot be the cause but only the effect of what occurred prior in time.

Change is an event. Period. Sorry, but the definition of nothing was a change from its pre-definitional state. That change affected (causation) the state of "nothing" transforming it into a conceptual something. Change and the impact of change exists as seamless and directly associated. Change cannot be change without having changed something - which is what causation refers to. Again, semantics. At least I'm not using the base word of an adjective as a noun (egotistical - ego). There are worse violations of the English language.

actively launched the fact of that specific change as information, which – in turn – established that fact (that causation creates information) as information.

Causation and time did not create the consciousness of the 'thinker'. Rather, it was the consciousness of the 'thinker' which created both time and causation. So, the question is "What caused the creation of the consciousness of the 'thinker'?" And "What caused the consciousness of the "self" which exists prior to the consciousness of the 'thinker'?".

Answer: the 'thinker' was caused by the thought of the 'thinker' which 'thought' the thought of the 'thinker' into existence in order to 'think' the thought of the 'thinker', etc.

The "self", on the other hand, was caused by the 'movement' of self-reflection by which the "self" reflected upon nothing in order to create the "self" to perform the 'movement' of self-reflection to create the "self" in order to perform the 'movement' of self-reflection creating itself.

Truly, a "no-brainer".

A no-brainer? Interesting that you should use that phrase. The brain is actually the generator of consciousness, and doesn't show up in physical existence for quite a while. Again, you're pushing your caboose down the track and pretending that it's pulling your train. You seem to see reality as a 2,000 yr old religionist, and this is what my book was written to address. That logical fallacy of genesis-less consciousness is what has driven hundreds of thousands of people into Atheism, and will eventually put God on the same shelf as Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny.

The modern thinker is fully capable of realizing that an always existent consciousness is simply not a plausible option. Logically, it doesn't work out once you really get disciplined with your examination. Consciousness is extremely sophisticated, and incredibly developed as an existential presence. Dynamic consciousness - as all who describe The All as being - is well beyond merely sophisticated and epitomical in expression. It may be easy to claim such an advance presence has no genesis, but that claim clashes with what can possibly support such a being in the sense of structural foundation of any sort. Especially if that being is physically capable of creating what we know to exist as corporeal matter.

To create something, a being must be able to physically associate with it. That means that this consciousness must share a substructural contextual commonality with corporeal matter. The ramifications are enormous, and must be thoroughly considered, when suggesting a dynamic, effectual conscious presence, and dismissing its need for an existential genesis is an issue that needs to be reconsidered eventually. I'll let you come upon that requirement for yourself.

As a result of that first change – with its occurrence creating two facts that would always be facts – physical existence, in the form of clearly existent information that will always exist, was now a true fact in itself.

And what, then, are the consciousness of the 'thinker' and the "self"?

Illusions?

These are generated bursts of information created by the corporeal brain. They launch into existence at the contextual environment's unit rate of change - I call it the Causal Unit Rate. That rate's frequency is what unites everything within this contextual environment, and allows it all to physically associate as stable and consistent. The String Theorists have just begun to suspect that a sub-structural frequency binds all that exists. That frequency is the impact of this sub-structural unit rate of change.

The existence of each eternal fact (information) in a direct contextual relationship with the other, immediately launched Truth’s own comparative state - Absolute Reality – and presented it as the definitive screen against which all that will ever exist is contrasted. This emergence established Reality as a third - the impact of Truth and Logic now that the physical exists – creating the Trinity of Absolutes. It was upon this foundation that physical existence would continue to emerge and progress as one or the other of only two basic forms; either Causation or Information.

All of this exists exclusively at the level of thought.

It appears to have no relationship whatsoever to the real world in which consciousness is required both to be aware of the physical reality and to attempt a description of the origin of that physical reality.

Michael

edit on 18-10-2010 by Michael Cecil because: add comments on the origin of "mind"

Actually, it existed long before thought was possible. Yes, I thought up this presentation, but that's not news. You thought up your response as well. That fact doesn't invalidate your presentation either.

The requirement is a genesis of physical existence. That genesis must rely on nothing of a physical nature to initiate that genesis, and it must involve something that physicists and scientists, as well as most philosophers and theologists, have always accepted as fundamental to the stability and consistency of physical existence while not existing as physical itself. Truth - the yes or no of what is real - is the only possible candidate, and with Truth a passive determination, Logic - how that passive Truth is determined - is left as the only non-physical candidate for the position of pre-contextual relatively active (I did say relatively, meaning relative to Truth's passivity) determiner of Truth.

If this is not how physical existence began, then it never began. But we know that it did begin. Just as the launch of the universe scattered plenty of remnants of that launch across the cosmos, the genesis of existence planted the agents of that genesis within the structure of what it's become. Truth, Logic and Reality are the staples of structure and progressive development. This explains why they are.

I appreciate your critique, and enjoyed addressing your points. Thank you.

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I can only lol at your armchair philosophy. Stringing together a bunch of complicated words in the hopes that the resulting sentence actually means something substantial is a good way to pass the time.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Apparently random half-philosophies are better at defining the origin of the universe than science.

I've yet to find a single scientific thought that says there was ever 'nothing'.

You've already lost on that point.

Haha, Professor Darwin is not amused by your armchair philosophy. FIFTY POINTS FOR GRYFFINDOR!

edit on 18-10-2010 by imnotbncre8ive because: (no reason given)

Complicated? This is actually extremely simple and primitive stuff. Non-intuitive is a better word than complicated for this stuff. Yes, non-intuitive, if it's a real word, is closer to what you mean here. It's definitely incompatible with what we've been taught. Then again, I wouldn't have bothered writing a book about something that we already knew. What would be the point in that?

reply to post by NorEaster

Not at all sure that what I say will be commensurable with your language, but there are at least two problems with what you are doing; one having to do with time, the other having to do with space.

First of all, you are projecting your consciousness backwards in time to a 'time' before anything existed and then you are 'reporting' from that time perspective that nothing exists. In other words, you want us to believe that what you are saying is not merely a thought; but a factual description of reality.

But how is it even possible to project one's consciousness backwards in time before anything existed?

That I do not understand.

Secondly, it is as if you are standing completely outside of "everything that exists", observing that "everything that exists" and reporting your observations. At least that is what you want us to believe.

But what can possibly exist outside of "everything that exists"?

What exactly does your frame of reference consist of--a frame of reference before anything exists and outside of everything that exists--in order that you can make any statement at all?

In other words, if you are claiming that yours is a consciousness which exists both before and outside of everything that exists, are you not, in one way or another, claiming to be God?

This, to me, seems to be a quite obvious question.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by NorEaster

Not at all sure that what I say will be commensurable with your language, but there are at least two problems with what you are doing; one having to do with time, the other having to do with space.

First of all, you are projecting your consciousness backwards in time to a 'time' before anything existed and then you are 'reporting' from that time perspective that nothing exists. In other words, you want us to believe that what you are saying is not merely a thought; but a factual description of reality.

But how is it even possible to project one's consciousness backwards in time before anything existed?

That I do not understand.

Secondly, it is as if you are standing completely outside of "everything that exists", observing that "everything that exists" and reporting your observations. At least that is what you want us to believe.

But what can possibly exist outside of "everything that exists"?

What exactly does your frame of reference consist of--a frame of reference before anything exists and outside of everything that exists--in order that you can make any statement at all?

In other words, if you are claiming that yours is a consciousness which exists both before and outside of everything that exists, are you not, in one way or another, claiming to be God?

This, to me, seems to be a quite obvious question.

Michael

Interesting way of seeing this.

I am reasoning out a plausible and responsible hypothesis concerning the genesis of physical existence. When Einstein reasoned out a plausible and responsible hypothesis concerning Relativity, he didn't place himself anywhere and report on what he saw. He puzzled it out and relied on formulas, but then, Relativity is far enough down the development chain for formulas to be relevent, whereas this determination involves issues that are much too primitive for formulas to be relevent at all. Only logic is applicable in this examination, and the more basic and unaffected the logic, the more applicable.

By the way, there is no such thing as a consciousness that exists "both before and outside of everything that exists". That's an assertion that was invented thousands of years ago to explain what humanity could viscerally sense, but could not intellectually conceptualize. I expect that there will be plenty of people, even now days, who will have a hell of a time with this assertion. It is fairly counterintuitive, but then it took some time for humanity to finally place itself and its Earth away from the center of the universe too. Convincing folks that we spin around the sun was no easy process. That said, it did end up being true.

And no, I'm not God. I was a professional guitarist for over 30 years, but that's as close as I ever got to being a god.

Originally posted by NorEaster

I am reasoning out a plausible and responsible hypothesis concerning the genesis of physical existence.

Then all you are saying is nothing more than a thought or an assumption or a speculation rather than anything even remotely approaching a fact; moreover, something which can never make the transition from hypothesis to fact.

When Einstein reasoned out a plausible and responsible hypothesis concerning Relativity, he didn't place himself anywhere and report on what he saw. He puzzled it out and relied on formulas, but then, Relativity is far enough down the development chain for formulas to be relevent, whereas this determination involves issues that are much too primitive for formulas to be relevent at all. Only logic is applicable in this examination, and the more basic and unaffected the logic, the more applicable.

And the more divorced from any relevance whatsoever to the physical reality.

Like mathematical logic.

Something like "string theory", which can neither be validated nor Popper-falsified by experiment or observation.

In other words, no different than Alice in Wonderland.

By the way, there is no such thing as a consciousness that exists "both before and outside of everything that exists".

But, without the assumption of such a frame of reference, you would not be able to say anything at all.

Anything.

That is precisely where you are standing when you make the assertions you are making.

And an abject unawareness of that fact is an inherent characteristic of that frame of reference.

That's an assertion that was invented thousands of years ago to explain what humanity could viscerally sense, but could not intellectually conceptualize. I expect that there will be plenty of people, even now days, who will have a hell of a time with this assertion.

And, as Carl Sagan wrote, "People laughed at Bozo the Clown, too"--meaning that, just because someone laughs at you, does not mean that you are the discoverer of some magnificent truth.

It is fairly counterintuitive, but then it took some time for humanity to finally place itself and its Earth away from the center of the universe too. Convincing folks that we spin around the sun was no easy process. That said, it did end up being true.

Even if what you say is, in fact, true; it would have no relationship whatsoever to the physical reality since it originated in an absolute break with that physical reality.

In effect, you have said to the physical reality "I divorce you" three times.

You cannot, then, 'marry' that physical reality again by saying that what you have discovered means anything at all or has any relevance at all to the physical reality.

And no, I'm not God. I was a professional guitarist for over 30 years, but that's as close as I ever got to being a god.

You may very well deny it with your lips...

But there is "yes, yes" in your "I"s.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by NorEaster

I am reasoning out a plausible and responsible hypothesis concerning the genesis of physical existence.

Then all you are saying is nothing more than a thought or an assumption or a speculation rather than anything even remotely approaching a fact; moreover, something which can never make the transition from hypothesis to fact.

When Einstein reasoned out a plausible and responsible hypothesis concerning Relativity, he didn't place himself anywhere and report on what he saw. He puzzled it out and relied on formulas, but then, Relativity is far enough down the development chain for formulas to be relevent, whereas this determination involves issues that are much too primitive for formulas to be relevent at all. Only logic is applicable in this examination, and the more basic and unaffected the logic, the more applicable.

And the more divorced from any relevance whatsoever to the physical reality.

Like mathematical logic.

Something like "string theory", which can neither be validated nor Popper-falsified by experiment or observation.

In other words, no different than Alice in Wonderland.

By the way, there is no such thing as a consciousness that exists "both before and outside of everything that exists".

But, without the assumption of such a frame of reference, you would not be able to say anything at all.

Anything.

That is precisely where you are standing when you make the assertions you are making.

And an abject unawareness of that fact is an inherent characteristic of that frame of reference.

That's an assertion that was invented thousands of years ago to explain what humanity could viscerally sense, but could not intellectually conceptualize. I expect that there will be plenty of people, even now days, who will have a hell of a time with this assertion.

And, as Carl Sagan wrote, "People laughed at Bozo the Clown, too"--meaning that, just because someone laughs at you, does not mean that you are the discoverer of some magnificent truth.

It is fairly counterintuitive, but then it took some time for humanity to finally place itself and its Earth away from the center of the universe too. Convincing folks that we spin around the sun was no easy process. That said, it did end up being true.

Even if what you say is, in fact, true; it would have no relationship whatsoever to the physical reality since it originated in an absolute break with that physical reality.

In effect, you have said to the physical reality "I divorce you" three times.

You cannot, then, 'marry' that physical reality again by saying that what you have discovered means anything at all or has any relevance at all to the physical reality.

And no, I'm not God. I was a professional guitarist for over 30 years, but that's as close as I ever got to being a god.

You may very well deny it with your lips...

But there is "yes, yes" in your "I"s.

Michael

You're a pretty nasty little f*cker aren't you. I saw your relentless vitriol in that other thread, and am not surprised at your negativity in this one. I get the feeling that you actually believe that being a jerk empowers you in threads where you have nothing to actually add. Threads like this one.

Guess what? Your well-established fixation on the primacy of consciousness proves that you have no idea what consciousness actually is. In reality, information exists. It's not beyond existence or beside existence or whatever else you seem to have been taught from someone or other. Consciousness is extremely sophisticated information, and the logic supports that assertion. Information that is unique in that it is only generated by the corporeal brain. If you want to know why logic supports that assertion then invest 20 bucks in learning why. Hit the link in my signature and dive into the deep end.

Or pretend that you know what you're talking about, and never discover why I know this to be true.

You offer nothing of substance, and until you do, I will focus on other posters and their comments. Like I said, I saw how you tried to derail that other thread with incessant spamming with completely unrelated statements, as well as trying to provoke posters into walking away from the debate. I've dealt with this garbage on other boards for years, and it's nothing new to anyone who's ever spent any time on these forums. This specific thread's information - like a said - is an offer to the people who read and post on this board. I gave it to them because I have appreciated that they're serious about learning new and novel notions. If nothing else, this notion is new and novel.

I can go on plenty of Internet forums if what I want is to slap around jerks who get into crass bullying and insulting vapidity. If you decide to grow up and become responsible in this discussion then I will acknowledge your comments. If not, then I suggest to others that you be ignored within this specific thread until you do. I don't like to do this, but you've proven your tendency to abuse people in other threads and this last post of yours suggests more of the same here.

Decaf is not as tough to get used to as some suggest. Just a suggestion.

reply to post by NorEaster

Well said, sir.

*

Now, about your proposition: I have to say I don't really understand it very clearly. Are you saying that truth and logic existed, more or less as Platonic ideals, before anything else? That they gave rise to a conceptual framework you call reality, which in turn gave rise to physical reality? Which arose out of nothing, raised by these animating principles?

Just trying to get things clear in my head before we continue.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Well said, sir.

*

Now, about your proposition: I have to say I don't really understand it very clearly. Are you saying that truth and logic existed, more or less as Platonic ideals, before anything else? That they gave rise to a conceptual framework you call reality, which in turn gave rise to physical reality? Which arose out of nothing, raised by these animating principles?

Just trying to get things clear in my head before we continue.

Hi

Thanks for the

Truth and Logic can exist in a relative sense - affected by what exists as physical - or they can exist as absolute - unaffected by what exists as physical. Both combine to establish the validity of the existential foundation - the being state. This can't be accomplished by what "is" (as in a physical sense of being) since to validate being, Truth and Logic cannot share being (as a fundamental aspect of what they are) with what they serve to validate. Yes, this is counterintuitive at first blush, but if you sit with it a while, and carefully consider the issue, it becomes clear that the logic behind what we know to exist - the definitive validation of existence - demands that the agents of that validation be existentially removed from what is being validated. Otherwise the internal requirement of existential self-validation is an endless spiral of repetitious inconclusiveness, and the existence of organized causation - with resulting material structure and the obvious sophistication of existential expression - proves that this endless spiral does not exist.

There are things that can only be studied by examining the impact they have on what can be perceive. Truth and Logic are these kinds of things. They exist, and we know that they exist because without them, nothing would have ever stabilized long enough for anything to ever progress beyond sporadic chaos - if even progressing to that extent. The mind-numbing intricacy of a single human cell requires that there be a "yes" and a "no" related to state of being, and more than a simple "yes" or "no" involving that being state. Computer builders - processors and logic circuits designers - use these fundamentals all the time, so these are not esoteric philosophies. Truth and Logic are the original agents of "yes" and "no", and like the "yes" and "no" of digital circuitry, they hover above (metaphorically speaking) what is being determined to be "yes" or "no" in the physical realm.

Reality is the resulting state of being - something either "is" or it "is not". Real or not real. If referring to a corporeal organization, then the standards are extremely easy to understand. If referring to a unit or configuration of information, then the standards are less obvious to the corporeal brain, (and conscious mind) and things can seem less definitive. However, Truth and Logic - being non-physical defining agents that serve to stabilize progressive development and allow for existential survival within the physical realm (yes, I am leaning heavily on personification to help explain this) - have no problem determining what is real and what is not real.

Reality did not give rise to physical existence. Reality arose due to the emergence of physical existence - specifically due to the emergence of the fact that Truth and Logic established a true definition of the absence of anything as the "existence of nothing". That fact emerged and when it did, it began its eternal existence as something that happened and could never "not have happened". This is what information is. The existence of what occurred as the truth that it did occur. Even a determined "untruth" truly occurs as an existential something, with its own impact upon physical existence, even if only in setting the precedence for a related untruth's exposition. That first emergence of information created the requirement of Truth's definitive comparison - "is it true or not true" - and this is what we (the entire human race) refer to as Reality.

Thanks for your question. The truth is that while this physical genesis examination is critical - and for me, fascinating - the focus of the book is much larger and details developments from this instant forward until the true (actual) reason for humanity (our version of humanity) becomes part of the existential whole. I just don't want anyone to think that my reveal is limited to this one issue. This book details a true theory of everything. Well, everything that causes the rest of what we, as humans, have been picking apart for the last several thousand years. This examination focuses on the open spaces between the raindrops. The stuff that causes the drops to fall in a uniform manner, and causes them to be drops in the first place. (metaphorically speaking, of course) As far as I've been able to determine, there is no other theory that takes this entire issue on. And certainly not one that approaches it from the point of view before and between where it's always been approached to date.

reply to post by NorEaster

First of all, Sir, it is not my intention to anger you; but I suspect my arguments will anger you nevertheless:

1) You have chosen to use the words "genesis" and "everything" in the title of this thread. Your use of the word "genesis" implies to me that you are repudiating as ridiculous the statements in Genesis, the first book of the Bible; which asserts, instead, that God Created everything. You are suggesting that such an origin can be established exclusively on the basis of human thought alone; whereas I consider Revelation to be necessary here. And, since this is a forum on "Origins and Creationism", what I am saying may very well not be pleasurable to you; but you cannot legitimately say that it is not relevant to the discussion. Similarly, your use of the word "everything" implies the definition of the word "everything". But, clearly, you are not talking about "everything" here. You completely disregard the genesis of both the consciousness of the "self" and the consciousness of the 'thinker'--which, of course, is the major consciousness responsible for what occurs on this planet. And you are also disregarding what the Eastern esoteric traditions refer to as the "observing consciousness". So, rather than the genesis of "everything", you are talking about the genesis of everything but consciousness. And, if you had titled your thread "The genesis of everything but consciousness"...Oh, never mind.

2) Any assertion that consciousness is 'generated' by brain tissue is nothing more than magical 'thinking'. It is not in any way a scientific assertion; no more than was either "phlogiston" or the "ether" of classical physics. It can never be established on the basis of an experiment. It is not "Popper-falsifiable". Any observations of brain scans etc. indicate nothing more than neurological correlates of consciousness. And correlations do not establish causation.

3) All of Western science is based upon the assertion that consciousness is merely an "epi-phenomenon" of neurology. The result is the creation of a society motivated primarily by what Freud referred to as the "death instinct".

Hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers and workers are involved in the production of any number of weapons of mass destruction capable of annihilating human civilization several times over; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities'--followed unquestioningly by millions upon millions of witless and/or gullible followers--have spent either hundreds or thousands of years concocting Satanic doctrines capable, in their eyes, of 'justifying' genocide of all other religionists....

All because neither science nor theology has ANY concern whatsoever about the question of consciousness and the psychological origins of conflict, violence and genocide.

So, I will not again interrupt your oh-so-precious thread discussing such absurdities; absurdities which you consider to be some magnificent truth no one else has ever discovered.

What you are doing has been done hundreds and thousands of times over the past several hundreds of years: concocting some witless thought or another--all such thoughts being motivated by a fundamental fear-desire associated with the preservation of the consciousness of the "self"--in opposition to and contradiction of the Revelations received by Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.

So, you might as well amuse yourself with such fantasies as long as you can.

Oh, and another thing: the "everything" that you refer to also does not include the Prophecies received by the prophets of the monotheistic religions; something for which you have no explanation whatsoever.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by NorEaster

First of all, Sir, it is not my intention to anger you; but I suspect my arguments will anger you nevertheless:

1) You have chosen to use the words "genesis" and "everything" in the title of this thread. Your use of the word "genesis" implies to me that you are repudiating as ridiculous the statements in Genesis, the first book of the Bible; which asserts, instead, that God Created everything. You are suggesting that such an origin can be established exclusively on the basis of human thought alone; whereas I consider Revelation to be necessary here. And, since this is a forum on "Origins and Creationism", what I am saying may very well not be pleasurable to you; but you cannot legitimately say that it is not relevant to the discussion. Similarly, your use of the word "everything" implies the definition of the word "everything". But, clearly, you are not talking about "everything" here. You completely disregard the genesis of both the consciousness of the "self" and the consciousness of the 'thinker'--which, of course, is the major consciousness responsible for what occurs on this planet. And you are also disregarding what the Eastern esoteric traditions refer to as the "observing consciousness". So, rather than the genesis of "everything", you are talking about the genesis of everything but consciousness. And, if you had titled your thread "The genesis of everything but consciousness"...Oh, never mind.

I appreciate your change in tone, and I will be happy - therefore - to address your points here.

The Biblical Story of genesis refers to the genesis of the relationship between God and humanity. That relationship began when God initiated the creation (in this narrative) of the corporeal realm and, eventually, humanity itself. Now, no one honestly believes that The Bible is a science book. Onl;y Evangelicals believe it to be a history book. The truth is that it is a book that is focused on the specifics of the relationship itself, and how that relationship affected a variety of instances that shaped the oral history of the nation of Israel.

This examination is not focused on the relationship between God and humanity. This examination is focused on what brought physical existence....well....into existence. God did not exist yet, and neither did consciousness. All there could have been is Truth and Logic (as I detailed above) and the absence of anything of a physical nature. Reality didn't even exist yet until a physical something came into existence that could be real.

My requirement, as I stated before, is that the physical something - even the informational conscious notion of something, as something in itself - requires genesis. Even an eternal something must come into initial existence. This tiny bit of my TOE offers a fully logical explanation for how such an initial something - one that would logically result in the causal chain that could then move forward with progressive development - could have come from a physical void.

2) Any assertion that consciousness is 'generated' by brain tissue is nothing more than magical 'thinking'. It is not in any way a scientific assertion; no more than was either "phlogiston" or the "ether" of classical physics. It can never be established on the basis of an experiment. It is not "Popper-falsifiable". Any observations of brain scans etc. indicate nothing more than neurological correlates of consciousness. And correlations do not establish causation.

Allow me an analogy. Activity is the progression of specific events. One event is replaced by another event, with the observed event a causal chain of such events that is significant enough to be perceived. That said, we know that such causal chain manifestation is not restricted to only one form that such a manifestation can take. An example would be a ball rolling across the floor. You have two distinct forms of causal chain manifestation.

1. The movement of the ball itself.
2. The activity that allows the ball to maintain its elemental structure as it rolls.

These two causal chains involve the same ball, but are completely unrelated to one another, and exist as two very different levels of causal expression. And it's not just about relative sophistication either. One is a matrixed expression of causal chaining, while the other - the rolling of the matrixed organization - is not a matrixed association of identifiable event oprganizations that are acting in union with one another to the benefit of a larger existential event, which in this case is the ball itself.

Information is similar in that there are various expressions of informational existence. Facts are relatively lean forms of information (contextually), whereas opinions are relatively dense forms of information (again, contextually). Each exist within the contextual environment, but one (fact) is a direct result of event occurrence within the environment, while the other (opinion) is generated by the aware and dynamic observation of the same event occurrence within the same environment.

To imagine that conscious thought is anything other than brain generated information is to ignore the impact of brain injury and other direct effects that can completely obliterate what was the nature and character of the aware consciousness and replace it with a completely new identity - constituting a new nature and character for the resulting consciousness associated with the same brain and same corporeal support system. If the esoteric consciousness was primary, this could not happen. But we see it happen all the time. I have to acknowledge this impact that causation has on consciousness, and accept that consciousness is not primary in essence. That it is the result of the human brain.

3) All of Western science is based upon the assertion that consciousness is merely an "epi-phenomenon" of neurology. The result is the creation of a society motivated primarily by what Freud referred to as the "death instinct".

Hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers and workers are involved in the production of any number of weapons of mass destruction capable of annihilating human civilization several times over; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious 'authorities'--followed unquestioningly by millions upon millions of witless and/or gullible followers--have spent either hundreds or thousands of years concocting Satanic doctrines capable, in their eyes, of 'justifying' genocide of all other religionists....

All because neither science nor theology has ANY concern whatsoever about the question of consciousness and the psychological origins of conflict, violence and genocide.

The issue here involves the variety of existential imperative expressions, and I really don't have the time or inclination to encapsulate the 30,0000 or so words it took me to present that aspect of my little theory. The book fully develops this, and even explains why such insanity is - while not good or positive in any sense - necessary to the result, even if it is driven by the human mind's confused need to somehow overcome what it knows to be inevitable. It's important to realize the temporary nature of corporeal existence, and what is important to gain from it. Otherwise, it all can seem like there could be no point to it whatsoever.

So, I will not again interrupt your oh-so-precious thread discussing such absurdities; absurdities which you consider to be some magnificent truth no one else has ever discovered.

What you are doing has been done hundreds and thousands of times over the past several hundreds of years: concocting some witless thought or another--all such thoughts being motivated by a fundamental fear-desire associated with the preservation of the consciousness of the "self"--in opposition to and contradiction of the Revelations received by Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.

So, you might as well amuse yourself with such fantasies as long as you can.

Oh, and another thing: the "everything" that you refer to also does not include the Prophecies received by the prophets of the monotheistic religions; something for which you have no explanation whatsoever.

Michael

If you were to go ahead and check the book out, you'd see that I do address all of this. Including Jesus, and Reincarnation, and paranormal phenomena, and even a few psychiatric disorders. I also address the physical nature of what the bible refers to as The Holy Spirit, so in a sesne, I address all the characters you listed above. I call the section "Horsehoes and Hand Grenades" in honor of the old saying "Close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades." Okay, it's a little cheeky, but I have fun throughout the entire book. Respectful fun, but still fun.

Oh, and about Prophecies.....there are issues concerning ancient prophecies that can be readily explained with a dry-eyed examination of the folks interpreting those prophesies, but I probably don't have to tell you that. As far as a 4,000 year old prophesy that is alledged to have been fulfilled 2,000 years ago. I can't imagine that you seriously expect to hang your hat on such allegations. I sure wouldn't. I wouldn't even offer a claim made in a small village in the Middle East about an event that is alledged to have occurred in 1987 as fact without gathering a significant amount of corroborating evidence to back up that claim. It may seem as though I believe all kinds of unsubstantiated information, but if you check the bopok out, you'll quickly learn that I am relentless in my verification efforts.

Thanks for only becoming an asshat at the end. It was almost refreshing.

The implication that I gather from this post, and the subsequent conversation, is that existence was spontaneously generated. You presuppose that from nothing, something changed, which necessitated the need for existence to form.

There is only one problem with this concept, and that is that this kind of realization is not something that can be done by something as totally basic as an atom or string. Besides, physics has yet to show how something can come from nothing. That would invalidate the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

The way that it's being portrayed here, it's almost as though existence always was, yet it didn't know that it was until one day, it looked at itself, and went "WHOA!! Here I am!!" To me, this theory doesn't make sense. There are far too many missing pieces that cannot be ignored, unless we take a different approach to the topic.....

My thoughts on this are just that; the universe was created as a thought. This would explain the seemingly "coming from nothing", as well as the whole Big Bang Theory. It was a spark, created in the mind of the "Thinker".

Realizing one's own existence is a complex function, that only living things can understand, let alone comprehend. To think that somehow, it just spontaneously generated itself from a totally empty void is the most ridiculous notion that I've ever heard. You cannot get something from nothing, unless something was already there in the first place, which then negates there being an empty void of nothing from the equation.

Perhaps I've made things overly complicated, but I just cannot accept pre-cognitive genesis. Not possible.

ETA: To further illustrate my point, I'm providing a little thought exercise here. Tell me if you can tell what each of these two images are merely by looking at them:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d1e6794b4bc1.jpg[/atsimg]


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f6c814cb1d81.jpg[/atsimg]

Let me know what you think.

TheBorg