The Genesis of Everything

reply to post by NorEaster

I asked,

Originally posted by Astyanax
Are you saying that truth and logic existed, more or less as Platonic ideals, before anything else?

It would seem from your reply to me that the answer is yes.

Where then, and in what sense, did they exist? What medium supported them?

How can logic exist without premises?

How can truth exist when there is nothing to lie about?

reply to post by TheBorg

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".

Since your argument is that nothing can come from nothing, whence came the Thinker?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by TheBorg

 

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".

Since your argument is that nothing can come from nothing, whence came the Thinker?

I'm not entirely sure on this, still fermenting, but isn't time a human invention? And if so, time didn't exist until the thought occured that time was finite. That is, it wasn't until, a human presumably, realised that it was one day going to die (for example), that the passage of time was 'realised' and became a 'reality' that was shared. The premise being that reality is a construct of the human mind and it's perceptions, however hard we can kick it, because we set the definitions by which it is defined. So reality, as we perceive it, didn't exist until the point at which a mind existed that could perceive it. And subsequently communicate it. The thinker and the thought are therefore created at the very same instant. If we apply the micro to the macro, the assumption would be that that realisation of time, or perhaps all realisations in general, was a chain reaction, or an echo or a vibration that was carried all the way from the...whatever...and reached that person who then communicated it to us all. And so on and so forth.

But I am seriously reaching over my head here..., it's kind of working for me though.

Originally posted by TheBorg
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.

Physics? That's pretty good. Physics is the examination of established physical existence. As in molecular structure and cause-effect within that structure. I'm sure you don't believe that the "laws of physics" ruled the existential genesis event. That probably wouldn't be an accurate notion. Logic? Yes. Physics? No.

The change (detailed ad nauseam in this thread already) did not necessitate a need for physical existence. It resulted in the first instance of physical existence. Read it again. Event, and information reflecting that event, are the two unit forms of physical existence. The accurate determination changed the absence of anything into the existence of nothing - resulting in a void in the true conceptual sense of what a void is. A true void can't remain undefined if Truth exists, and Truth does exist, and it exists regardless of the nature of what is being defined by it. This extremely primitive way of thinking is required when addressing the primitive nature of existential origins.

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.....

Personification is fun, but existence itself has no awareness. Truth is not physical, and what I'm dealing with is the genesis of physical existence. And this examination is not limited to molecular/corporeal versions of physical existence, but all physical existence. Molecular existence is pretty far down the development chain, and consciousness won't show up until well after corporeal existence forms and reaches an epitome expression as a direct result of that molecular existence. I hope I am being clear enough in how I believe the progression rolled out once the initial instance of genesis occurred.

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".

Intellect (in other words, consciousness) is much too sophisticated and highly developed to be the initiator of physical existence. As for the universe, who cares how that slice of physical existence came about. I certainly don't. There are probably many universes, as many theorists believe. If not, then that's okay too. The "whole" is the contextual environment, which can readily include as many universes and dimensions as you want it to. All that's required is a common "causal unit rate" of progressive change. This "causal unit rate" unites all that exists within the environment under one expression of what we've termed Time. There is a lot that fills in the gaps that will inevitably exist when trying to explain the logical requirements of reality in a 500 word forum post, but I am doing what I can to respond to your comments.

If consciousness is responsible for the universe, then whose consciousness is it, and why does it lack unique identity - sharing the whole of this observation as common observation for all that exists in association with that observation? Identity is what delineates and isolates the unique whole. In the popular descriptions of this all-encompassing consciousness, what is lacking is the capacity for this whole to be a unique conscious whole without obliterating each and every identified unique conscious whole it contains. I don't think I like the ramifications of such a theory.

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.

Existence doesn't require an audience. You need to simplify your definition of physical existence. Physical existence is extremely simple and extremely scalable. You haven't made things complicated. You've simply pushed your own caboose down the tracks in front of your train, and like that other guy, you've decided to call it your train's engine. Doing that doesn't make a caboose an engine, and even the best argument you can toss together doesn't convince reality to be anything other than what it is. That said, the whole "consciousness is primary" argument isn't a good argument. You still have to deal with the genesis of that dynamic consciousness. Then you're right back trying to figure out where it all began.

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

edit on 24-10-2010 by TheBorg because: clarifications...

One picture is green and the other isn't. That's all I got for you. Color is not a determiner in my view of whatever the point is here. Neither picture says much at all to me.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I asked,

Originally posted by Astyanax
Are you saying that truth and logic existed, more or less as Platonic ideals, before anything else?

It would seem from your reply to me that the answer is yes.

Where then, and in what sense, did they exist? What medium supported them?

How can logic exist without premises?

How can truth exist when there is nothing to lie about?

edit on 25/10/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)

This is an excellent question and one that still has me puzzled. Then again, I exist as a physical being, and always will, and the Truth/Logic qualifier team exists as other than physical - as can be easily proven with simple logic. Premise involves reality, and reality exists as a result of physical existence. Logic establishes the tenets of reality (whether relative reality or the existential primary "absolute" reality) I use the quotes because I'm not comfortable with the notion of any form of reality as absolute, even though the foundational real is obviously different than the relative real of contextual juxtaposition.

The issue involving Truth and Logic, is that we know that they both exist beyond the sub-structural foundation, and the reason that we know this is that such a structure could not exist if both were either non-existent or the result of that sub-structure. Logic demands that Truth and Logic be unaffected by physical existence if they are to be contributive or even directive in the formation of that structure - which we know that they are. Of course, relative versions of both exists and are the result of existential context relationships. Still, the foundational true must exist, or structure simply can't exist. Even the concept could not exist, and certainly not progressive developments involving structure.

Structure does exist, and that's undeniable. The implications of the extreme complexity of physical structure is that Truth and Logic (I like to capitalize the foundational forms to delineate them from their relative versions) are other than physical, even though there doesn't seem to be a way of opening either up to view the "working components" to determine what causes Truth or Logic to exist in whatever form they exist. If you have a thought concerning the origin and essential "motivation" of truth and/or logic that ends up being viable, then I'd love to be able to toss it in and give you the credit for figuring it out. The nature of both are obvious, but the impetus is a mystery to me. That said, the development of consciousness is a no-brainer (no pun intended) and I seriously have not detected a need for, or evidence of, any deliberate involvement of consciousness in the long drive to achieve the development of consciousness within the realm of the physical.

And it's not as if I didn't look hard for this conscious intervention, or even hope that I'd find such a intervening consciousness. I did want to find God at the bottom of all of this.

reply to post by NorEaster


sounds like your own religion, as you can not prove anything you have stated.


But I will give you a chance.

With nothing make me 100 pounds of Gold and 300 pounds of silver. Oh yea and send it to my new Island you create out of nothing.

I will be waiting, oh a ship to get to my new Island will be nice as I do not want to spend my gold and silver.

reply to post by NorEaster


Well, first off, I'd like to answer the question I asked in my previous post. The green image is of several neurons in a brain. A couple more good examples can be found here. The second one is a picture of a portion of the known universe. The rest of the image can be found here.

Notice the similarities between the two? This common structure leads me to surmise that the universe is nothing more than the brain of some greater entity. This would explain how the universe could have been created seemingly out of "nothing". It was a thought, generated by the "Thinker". Now, onto "nothing"...

The whole problem with nothing is that it's a concept only. There is no such thing as nothing, and never has been. The reason that nothing cannot exist is because as soon as it was defined as "nothing", it became something, which means that it wasn't nothing to begin with. This is some of that circular logic that we're all told to avoid in logic class. Besides, all that is could not have possibly come from nothing, because it would have necessitated there being something for the universe to have come from. That is UNLESS we consider the possibility that I've already mentioned; that we're the product of a thought. At the moment a thought is generated, it seemingly comes from nothing.

This means that the "spontaneous genesis" theory could only be accepted if we accept the notion that we're the thought of some higher entity with intelligence. In my opinion, existence necessitates intelligent design, based on the evidence, both anecdotal and real, that I've provided.

TheBorg

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

So reality, as we perceive it, didn't exist until the point at which a mind existed that could perceive it.

A star from me for your excellent post. But is there a pre-existing reality that is not as we perceive it?

reply to post by Astyanax


That reminds me of Rene DesCarte's statement, "I think, therefore I am." That almost suggests that we create the reality that we find ourselves in. And that reminds me of the "chicken before the egg". I can't see that being the answer, but it IS intriguing.

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg

That reminds me of Rene DesCarte's statement, "I think, therefore I am."

But Nietzsche refuted this statement, unanswerably, in Beyond Good and Evil, by pointing out that thoughts aren't actually voluntary; as he put it, 'what is this "you" that "thinks"?'

A few posts up the thread, KilgoreTrout explains that it is not meaningful to think of a time before time came into existence. There is no such before.

Stephen Hawking used to say the universe is finite but without boundaries. If that is true--he's having his doubts about it these days--it means that the very words 'beginning' and 'end' are meaningless.

But we mustn't steal NorEaster's thunder...

Okay, so here it is in a nutshell.

At some point, nothing at all had to become something. It had to. Even if you embrace the concept of a consciousness that initiated what we know as everything, it's own something had to have emerged from an existential void at some point. The fact that it exists within a causal environment of somethings insists that it had its own emergence from a comparative void - even if comparative to its own version of something that it obviously enjoys as reality.

To have that emergence occur, a change had to have caused that emergence. Just one change. However, to fulfill the requirement of logical initiation, that change had to have occurred beyond the causal realm that emerged as a result of that change. It simply could not have occurred within a causal realm that emerged as a result of that occurrence. That would be literally impossible. This change would have had to be unique and completely singular in all of existence. In fact, it would have had to involved its own unique version of existence, while being fully capable of impacting the resulting version of existence that would emerge as a result without being impacted by that emerging version of existence. This capacity is illustrated by all subsequent creation/creator relationships that have emerged since this initiating instance.

Another requirement would be that at least two agents be involved, since change is the result of interplay (activity between relative dissimilars that are fully relatable). These agents would have to be apparent within the resulting existential realm that emerged from this change event, since such a realm would inherently be associable and directly associated with the agents involved - with both existential agents continuing as what they are, doing what they do, and impacting the emerged realm in a completely unaffected sense of what they've always been regardless of what has ever emerged as a result of their impact. After all, this is the most primitive and essential of all that can possibly exist in any form whatsoever. It hasn't the sophistication to change on its own. It's the ultimate in indivisibility. And it involves at least more than the singular indivisible, since interplay was required for change (the resulting fact of that interplay) to emerge.

In the physical realm of existence, Truth and Logic are the only agents that fully impact that realm without being subject to the realm itself. They fit the requirements sketched out above, and do so without anything else that is fully obvious coming anywhere near in comparison. And these dissimilar agents would be obvious, since they laced the result of their creative involvement with their own influence, as is the case with any and all creative agents. And they are obvious within all subsequent realms of physical expression. In fact, they are omnipresent and omnipotent in their obviousness. Nothing else has the presence within physical existence that Truth and Logic have, and the stability they provide physical existence is a natural extension of the impact of having been responsible for the emergence of physical existence. This fact of the creator/creation relationship is replicated throughout the physical realm.

As to why the definition of "the lack of anything" as "the true existence of nothing" must have been that initiating change? What was needed was the creation of the very first fact (the initial collective of information units) as a result of the interplay of these two agents, and frankly, what else could possibly have been awaiting the establishment of itself as a definitive fact but "the lack of anything"? It was the emergence of that 1st fact that was the 1st physical change, and that change caused the 2nd fact - the 2nd physical change - to emerge. From there it was a classic "rinse/repeat" infinity loop with the imperative Survival (which we also know exists in a variety of expressions) pushing both activity and information to strive for development at a level of impetus that we (as conscious beings) would have to employ personification to imagine.

This AutoGenesisism premise was developed to help atheists and agnostics better understand the logical plausibility of a creative consciousness as author of our own existential realm, with its own Survival imperative expression as the motivation for such an initiative. This one tiny aspect of the entire premise was necessary to figure out so that the reader would have a plausible and reasonable existential genesis for that creative consciousness - which I fully believe it needed. The author of our contextual environment had its own start, and then replicated that start to bring our realm into existence. It did so utilizing a similar event featuring a unique and dissimilar sub-structural causal unit rate than that of its own contextual environment (in order to delineate this environment as a unique confine). And from there, this contextual environment did what the original did; piling natural development as the survival imperative drove that development.

The book Taking Down the Curtain details this and more over 325 pages, and approaches the issue of physical existence in a way that has not be done - at least that I've been able to find in 5 years of very aggressive research of all published efforts. To be honest, I wanted to find a kindred spirit out there, and still wish I could find one that's been pursuing this issue from this perspective. This ball is its own ball that could use some pushing. The physicists do what they do, and the cosmologists do what they do. And the philosophers and mystical metaphysicists do what they do to inspire us all to wonder about what we are and why we exist. This is something that is different than any of them, and I hope that someone else gets interested enough to pick up this ball and run even further with it.

Thanks for reading about what I've done with what I noticed lying in front of me.

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by NorEaster

 

sounds like your own religion, as you can not prove anything you have stated.


But I will give you a chance.

With nothing make me 100 pounds of Gold and 300 pounds of silver. Oh yea and send it to my new Island you create out of nothing.

I will be waiting, oh a ship to get to my new Island will be nice as I do not want to spend my gold and silver.

Religions are bullsh*t. So is the concept of "holy". So is the concept of an eternal always that needs no genesis.

The gold? I took care of that this morning. It's on the yacht. Happy sailing.

Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Well, first off, I'd like to answer the question I asked in my previous post. The green image is of several neurons in a brain. A couple more good examples can be found here. The second one is a picture of a portion of the known universe. The rest of the image can be found here.

Notice the similarities between the two? This common structure leads me to surmise that the universe is nothing more than the brain of some greater entity. This would explain how the universe could have been created seemingly out of "nothing". It was a thought, generated by the "Thinker". Now, onto "nothing"...

The overall design is similar, but doesn't make what they are similar. Then again, "As above, so below" is a very workable premise, and has proven to be true in other cases. Of course, that doesn't address the issue of existential genesis.

The whole problem with nothing is that it's a concept only.

Only a concept? Information (concept) is the only truly survivable unit of physical existence. You have to overcome your inclination to see the physical realm in terms of matter and corporeal development. You ignore a full 25% of physical development if you do that. At least 25%. And then you dismiss the hybrid expressions that result from infomation's relationship with the corporeal realm. This field of play is a bit more extensive than you're allowing it to be.

There is no such thing as nothing, and never has been. The reason that nothing cannot exist is because as soon as it was defined as "nothing", it became something, which means that it wasn't nothing to begin with.

Yes, a realized and defined nothing is something, and this is what occurred. That change from "not being anything" to "being nothing" was the initial change, and it was the result of interplay between two non-physical agents - Truth and Logic. What emerged as physical; was the fact of that change in nothing's status as a newly minted conceptual something. That fact's emergence was the 2nd change, and this change occurred in the physical contextual environment that we've termed Reality. From there, you can factor out the ramifications and the resulting loop of change and the emergence of information related to that change.

This is some of that circular logic that we're all told to avoid in logic class. Besides, all that is could not have possibly come from nothing, because it would have necessitated there being something for the universe to have come from. That is UNLESS we consider the possibility that I've already mentioned; that we're the product of a thought. At the moment a thought is generated, it seemingly comes from nothing.

Information is something, and a thought is extremely complex and context-flushed information. It contains the contextual identity of the thinker, and that identity reflects the existential history of that thinker. The physical mass of a thought is enormous. That mass has to have developed from somewhere in response to something. It can't simply "seem like it comes from nowhere" and have that be the logical explanation for its existence. That's taking a pass on the issue. Not addressing it.

This means that the "spontaneous genesis" theory could only be accepted if we accept the notion that we're the thought of some higher entity with intelligence. In my opinion, existence necessitates intelligent design, based on the evidence, both anecdotal and real, that I've provided.

I believe that our specific contextual environment was initiated by an intelligent author, but that's due to other evidentiary aspects that I haven't got the time or inclination to list here. The initial genesis did not happen "spontaneously". It happened as a result of what you, yourself, stated above. The logical requirement that a true nothing be a conceptual something. The only way that anything can be a conceptual something is to be determined to be true in the real sense of what it is. This happened to the existential void when it was determined to be nothing by Logic and qualified as such by Truth.

Yes, it sounds counterintuitive, but I explain above why this makes sense even if it's difficult for those educated in traditional thought have a tough time with it.

reply to post by NorEaster

Thanks for the reply, NorEaster. I'm still not convinced by the idea of primordial Forms. I will express my doubts in the form of a few more questions:

Originally posted by NorEaster
Logic establishes the tenets of reality.

Are you sure it is not reality that establishes the principles of logic? How can you be sure of this?

The issue involving Truth and Logic, is that we know that they both exist beyond the sub-structural foundation, and the reason that we know this is that such a structure could not exist if both were either non-existent or the result of that sub-structure.

Why not the latter? Why can't truth and logic be emergent properties of physical reality? Anyway, isn't it more plausible to see them simply as mental artifacts?

Logic demands that Truth and Logic be unaffected by physical existence if they are to be contributive or even directive in the formation of that structure - which we know that they are.

Why does logic demand this? Can logic make demands upon itself?

How do we know that truth and logic contribute to or direct the function of physical reality? What if they merely inform human apprehensions of this reality? What if they distort our apprehensions?

In short, I am certain you have correctly identified the chicken and the egg in this riddle.

reply to post by NorEaster

At some point, nothing at all had to become something... To have that emergence occur, a change had to have caused that emergence... To fulfill the requirement of logical initiation, that change had to have occurred beyond the causal realm that emerged as a result of (it)... This change would have had to be unique and completely singular in all of existence. In fact, it would have had to involved its own unique version of existence, while being fully capable of impacting the resulting version of existence that would emerge as a result, without being impacted by (it)...

This rather neatly describes the properties of the singularity from which our universe is thought to be emergent. It does not follow that the singularity is an immaterial entity, nor that the emergent properties of the universe are implicit in it.

Another requirement would be that at least two agents be involved, since change is the result of interplay...

Why two agents? Why not agent and substance?

These agents would have to be apparent within the resulting existential realm that emerged from this change event, since such a realm would inherently be associable and directly associated with the agents involved.

This does not follow in the case of a singularity.

In the physical realm of existence, Truth and Logic are the only agents that fully impact that realm without being subject to the realm itself.

Are not truth and logic modified as our understanding of the world about us grows? What has relativity taught us about truth? What have we learned about logic from the paradoxes of quantum mechanics? Are you sure truth and logic are beyond the reach of phenomena?

Information (concept) is the only truly survivable unit of physical existence.

Without a material substrate of some sort to encode it in, information is literally nothing.

Nothing else has the presence within physical existence that Truth and Logic have, and the stability they provide physical existence is a natural extension of the impact of having been responsible for the emergence of physical existence. This fact of the creator/creation relationship is replicated throughout the physical realm.

'As above, so below,' is a law of magic, not of science.

reply to post by Astyanax


In response to your last question; are you sure of this? Does my last post impact your views on that at all. "As above, so below" has some truth to it, no?

NorEaster, I'll be able to respond to ya later. At work right now, and that reply will take me a bit... great conversation too!

TheBorg

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Thanks for the reply, NorEaster. I'm still not convinced by the idea of primordial Forms. I will express my doubts in the form of a few more questions:

Originally posted by NorEaster
Logic establishes the tenets of reality.

Are you sure it is not reality that establishes the principles of logic? How can you be sure of this?

In this question, you have to include the terms "relative" and "absolute" (or "affected" and unaffected" if those terms work better for you). Truth and Logic, as concepts, do come in these two flavors, and reality does dictate the terms of relative truth and relative logic. Here's a quick example of what I mean.

Absolute versus Relative (The Impact of Context)

Let’s look at a simple example of the stark difference between these two foundational being states. Absolute Logic’s determination of Absolute Truth can be illustrated with the simple logical equation A+B=C therefore C-A=B. It’s simple and easy to appreciate, and you really can’t argue with it, as long as the equation features symbols that do not represent actual items that provide context to the statement. If you present these specific letters as identifiers, assigning physical items in this equation (imposing context to the logic), you cause the equation to possibly become false as a result.

Let’s use the major ingredients of a simple recipe with A, B and C in the role of identifiers for the following ingredients:

A = coffee,
B = chocolate
C = mocha.

With the letters in the role of identifiers, this equation A+B=C therefore C-B=A is no longer a logic equation, but becomes a statement that describes a recipe and an absurd assertion (Coffee + Chocolate = Mocha therefore Mocha - Chocolate = Coffee). This is no longer the logic equation it was, since in the contextual environment that is shared by Coffee, Chocolate and Mocha, once blended, the Chocolate cannot actually be subtracted from the Mocha to leave Chocolate-free Coffee. Of course, soluble items within a solution cannot be physically separated once they’ve been blended. In our well-established physical reality, this is simply impossible.

The context (physical properties) that was imposed on that logic equation (A = Coffee, B = Chocolate and C = Mocha) changed the nature of the equation itself, and that changed the equation from being true to being false. This is the impact of context. Once context is introduced, an absolute state of being is no longer possible.

Of course, in the Absolute equation above, the introduction of carefully chosen context could have allowed the statement to remain true, but it would then reflect Relative Truth, as it would always be subject to potential revision. That statement would be vulnerable to shifts in contextual relationships within the structure of that statement or between that statement and whatever else that may exist that impacts that statement.

That introduction of identifying context is what causes the reality of any truth or logical premise to become relative. For our purposes, Relative will describe the being state of all physical existence.

*excerpt from "Taking Down the Curtain" copyright 2010

As you can see, the reality of our corporeal realm, when it is introduced into that very simple and very stable equation as realm-centric properties, overwhelms the contextual relationships within that equation and renders it untrue and illogical. This is what many people think of when they think of the viability of Truth and Logic. They don't allow for the delineation between relative truth and logic, and what I like to refer to as absolute truth and logic. Of course, I use the term Absolute as offered in Webster's dictionary - Existing independently; not affected by internal or external context; ultimate; intrinsic and I don't engage in unproductive semantics debates when this specific definition is established and readily useable.

The issue involving Truth and Logic, is that we know that they both exist beyond the sub-structural foundation, and the reason that we know this is that such a structure could not exist if both were either non-existent or the result of that sub-structure.

Why not the latter? Why can't truth and logic be emergent properties of physical reality? Anyway, isn't it more plausible to see them simply as mental artifacts?

Mental indicates a consciousness at work, engaged in perception, and I've already addressed the ultra-sophisticated physical nature of consciousness. It can't possibly be existentially primordial. It's inherent complexity prohibits such a possibility. Again, you're not differentiating between relative and absolute in your examination of Truth and Logic. This is not the way to approach this sort of examination. The terms and the application of terms must be extremely strict and disciplined. The impact of casual referencing can be extraordinary. You have to approach your depictions as if you're engaged in contract law. Anything less dooms your examination before it even starts.

Logic demands that Truth and Logic be unaffected by physical existence if they are to be contributive or even directive in the formation of that structure - which we know that they are.

Why does logic demand this? Can logic make demands upon itself?

Anything rigid and precise in expression (such as Logic) exists under the inherent demands of that rigidity and precision. That's a given. If not, then it can't be considered rigid or precise - which, by all responsible descriptions - Logic is. Truth - and not that relative crap that you folks like to play with here - is just as bound by its own inherent nature. Excellence is a prison for that which is excellent. Perfection? That's more like an eternal hell of confinement. At least excellence has the chance at some form of parole. Perfection is forever.

How do we know that truth and logic contribute to or direct the function of physical reality? What if they merely inform human apprehensions of this reality? What if they distort our apprehensions?

In short, I am certain you have correctly identified the chicken and the egg in this riddle.

The nature of consistency and structure demand a foundational "yes" and a foundational "no". Ask an engineer about this. They understand the nature of sub-structure, and how a rigid demand is needed for any form of structure to exist. That rigid demand is what we call Logic and the result of that demand is what we call Truth. Logic is the relative "masculine" between the two, being the more determinable to Truth's relative "feminine" passivity. Of course, I'm referring to "masculine" in the conceptual sense of relative qualification, as it's been used for thousands of years. These existential qualifications allow Truth and Logic to exist as a pre-physical Yin and Yang, delineating the two in relative function so as to allow for interplay in a non-dualist manner.

They combine to establish the foundational real, and that foundational real (Absolute Reality) is the comparative standard by which all that exist as physical are qualified and identified. Within that foundational set, there exist contextual relationships that establish relative "realities", and you can get caught within these and lose sight of the larger requirements that exist beneath them. However, there is a "beneath them" that must exist, and it must be absolute (as in unaffected) in how it exists. This absolute sub-structural reality is what I have been examining in this thread. Universes and dimensions and consciousnesses are relative, and we all know that. That said, there must be a sub-structural absolute for such relative realities to exist.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NorEaster

 

At some point, nothing at all had to become something... To have that emergence occur, a change had to have caused that emergence... To fulfill the requirement of logical initiation, that change had to have occurred beyond the causal realm that emerged as a result of (it)... This change would have had to be unique and completely singular in all of existence. In fact, it would have had to involved its own unique version of existence, while being fully capable of impacting the resulting version of existence that would emerge as a result, without being impacted by (it)...

This rather neatly describes the properties of the singularity from which our universe is thought to be emergent. It does not follow that the singularity is an immaterial entity, nor that the emergent properties of the universe are implicit in it.

Then again, I'm not examining the emergence of the universe. I'm examining the emergence of physical existence. These are two very different examinations. If a Big Bang did happen - which I have no issue with as a theory - then the potential for that bang existed before the bang. That means that a physical something existed before the universe, and that issue is still pending resolution.

The singularity that I am describing is the event itself. The interplay that resulted in the change that was reflected as having occurred by the fact of that occurrence. That eternal fact - that the change occurred - launched the whole of physical existence, as I explain in previous posts above.

Another requirement would be that at least two agents be involved, since change is the result of interplay...

Why two agents? Why not agent and substance?

This is pre-substance. The agents are Truth and Logic, which I cover fairly extensively above can serve within two very distinct capacities - Relative and Absolute. There must be associable and relatively equitable dissimilars for any interplay to occur. This does not demand a dualistic precondition (as I detail in the post above) but it does demand dissimilarity in some sense. Truth and Logic (the passive and the determinative) fulfill this requirement.

These agents would have to be apparent within the resulting existential realm that emerged from this change event, since such a realm would inherently be associable and directly associated with the agents involved.

This does not follow in the case of a singularity.

The explanation admits to having no indivisible unit presence. Just before it bows out for a quick bathroom break.

In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).

Physics is the examination of physical relationships. Maybe in the world of Quantum Theory there is no requirement for Truth or Logic as a fundamental staple, but in the world where things need some form of stability and structure to continue to exist, the Truth and Logic tag-team is the only game in town. Real is definitive in the physical realm, and this is regardless of the legal arguments to the contrary. Employing assertion as the basis for subsequent assertions is no way to conduct an examination. Eventually, the entire premise collapses due to the absence of a definitive true in the sub-structure. As with physical structure, conceptual structure depends on responsible consistency. I don't run into much of that in Quantum Theory. Not lately anyway.

In the physical realm of existence, Truth and Logic are the only agents that fully impact that realm without being subject to the realm itself.

Are not truth and logic modified as our understanding of the world about us grows? What has relativity taught us about truth? What have we learned about logic from the paradoxes of quantum mechanics? Are you sure truth and logic are beyond the reach of phenomena?

You must restrict your terminology to definitive application or this discussion can't survive. In my book, I devote tens of thousands of words to the establishment of rigid and definite terminology, and I do this so that when a word is used, the reader knows exactly what that word means. In this kind of examination, such discipline is critical.

Relative truth and relative logic are subjectable to modification as a result of the malleable nature of environmental context. Shifts in existential relationships cause these two to morph and adjust all the time. That said, there is a sub-structural Truth and a sub-structural Logic, and these do not and cannot change. If they could, then the direct ramifications would obliterate the established relationships between every bit of structural existence that has come into manifestation as a result of the initial determination that was made and accepted. If the sub-structural Truth/Logic suite was malleable, we wouldn't be taking a look at it right now. The lack of dependable consistency would never have allowed organized structure of any kind, and certainly not consciousness.

Information (concept) is the only truly survivable unit of physical existence.

Without a material substrate of some sort to encode it in, information is literally nothing.

I'm sorry, but it appears that you don't seem to fully understand the nature of information. A fact is a fact, regardless of whether its been perceived or "encoded". The communication of information might be what you're describing. Information exists separate from the means of exchanging it.

Nothing else has the presence within physical existence that Truth and Logic have, and the stability they provide physical existence is a natural extension of the impact of having been responsible for the emergence of physical existence. This fact of the creator/creation relationship is replicated throughout the physical realm.

'As above, so below,' is a law of magic, not of science.

Not magic. It's an empirical observation.

The replication of sub-atomic elemental orbit by planets? As above, so below. From the largest to the smallest, there is redundancy. This is because redundancy works.

In the automotive industry, they pioneered a concept called "engineering for parts reduction". Instead of having 50 different sizes and types of screws, nuts, bolts, knobs, hoses, hinges, and whatever, to address the design needs of 50 different models and makes of cars, they decided to try using the same size and type of screw, nut, bolt, knob, hose, hinge, and whatever, where they could for all 50 makes and models. Saved them billions over the decades. Redundancy, where applicable, is what the automotive industry learned from physical reality. As above, so below. It's the fundamental axiom of efficiency.

It can seem like magic, but it's how reality works.

reply to post by TheBorg

"As above, so below" has some truth to it, no?

It is a tenet of that failed 'science', alchemy, and an example of what we may call magical thinking.

You may look at a picture of a neuron sliced and stained on a microscope slide, notice similarities to a computer-generated picture of some modelled aspect of the universe, and draw portentous conclusions from their similarity. This is to forget that both images are highly artificial; they are both products of the human hand and mind, and their similarity lies in this as much as anything else. You also forget that the laws of mathematics and physics act at every scale from Planck distances to cosmic ones, generating similar-looking phenomena at every scale. That doesn't mean the phenomena are connected in some mystical, paraphysical way.

reply to post by NorEaster

Then again, I'm not examining the emergence of the universe. I'm examining the emergence of physical existence.

I think I see. You are trying to explain what we might call The Borg's Paradox: how can something come out of nothing?

I think you may well be wasting your time. The mystery is not how something can come from nothing. The mystery is how 'nothing' can possibly exist in the first place. It certainly doesn't exist in the physical universe. Nothing is to be seen nowhere.

'Nothing' is a mental placeholder, like the value zero in arithmetic. It stands for the absence (in a given place and time) of something already known to exist (in other places and times). Nothing is not an entity with its own essence. On the contrary, it is, literally, nothing. Before you bend your efforts to discover how Something could come out of Nothing, best consider whether Nothing ever existed at all.

I'm sorry, but it appears that you don't seem to fully understand the nature of information. A fact is a fact, regardless of whether its been perceived or "encoded". The communication of information might be what you're describing. Information exists separate from the means of exchanging it.

Perhaps I don't 'fully understand'. More probably I don't even partially understand. But it seems to me that a fact is always about something. It is always referential. Information can only exist in reference to something, and even when that something is only imaginary, it is being imagined by a physical something. Such are the substrates to which I refer, and I don't see how information can exist without them.

('As above, so below' is) not magic. It's an empirical observation.

The replication of sub-atomic elemental orbit by planets? As above, so below.

It is not an empirical observation. If you hope to make your reputation in philosophy with this book of yours, you'll need to be more careful in your use of the terminology. 'As above, so below' is a postulate based on empirical data. Another such postulate is 'Earth is the centre of the universe'. Another is 'the attraction between two massive bodies is proportional to the product of their masses.' Only the last of these postulates is true.

What you refer to as 'sub-atomic element orbits' are better known as electron orbits. This so-called 'planetary model' of the atom was derived by Niels Bohr via a deliberate analogy to the solar system; it is conscious and artificial. In fact, electrons do not whizz round atomic nuclei like planets round the Sun; nothing like that happens at all. The model is not a true picture of reality. It isn't even a useful working model.

You can read more about the planetary model, and its shortcomings here.

I suspect I've to an end my participation on this thread, NorEaster. I'm afraid you haven't convinced me--I don't feel your arguments are sound, and anyway you're trying to solve a problem that, in my opinion, does not exist. Still, it was good to talk. My best wishes for the success of your book. When is it coming out?