The Genesis of Everything

Originally posted by Astyanax
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?

Thank you

I would guess that as soon as we perceive it, it acheives representation in our reality and therefore the point is moot. Let us say that, we are on occasion given a very quick look into that 'pre-existing reality', like the box is opened and closed rapidly, enough to know that there is something in there but not enough to gain a tangible focus on what is in there or it's 'state' (dead or alive in the case of the cat). Then, like a game of Chinese whispers, those glimpses are given shape and form and dimension, by comparing and contrasting the data by the observers, but while all views may differ in clarity, they will all still be incomplete. However, that process in itself gives the 'pre-existing reality', a reality, but that reality is not necessarily representative of the truth of that pre-existing reality. Which, I think, means what I am trying to say is, that it doesn't matter what the pre-existing reality is, while there may be a pre-existing reality, we may be incapable of percieving it's truth because we belong to this reality and are only programmed to understand it.

Which I'm not sure makes any sense but I do like to try my hand at these things, you never know when the right circuits might suddenly fuse.

Originally posted by Astyanax
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.

If logic exists, then there had to have been an absence of physical existence before there was a presence of physical existence. That may seem uselessly primitive as a statement, but if you really examine it, its primitive nature accurately reflects the primitive nature of the examination. To be or not to be. The being state - absolute or relative - precedes physical existence when doing the parent/child tree breakout. At that absolute/relative level of existential progression, the true absence of physical existence ended and the conceptual existence of nothing as being just that - a fact - came into physical existence and created the being state we call relative as a result of there now being a comparative state of "being, as opposed to not being". At our extremely advanced level of existence, this sort of notion can seem like parlor talk semantics, but at the primitive level of development that this occurred, it was revolutionary.

I think that many people don't realize that I am referring to physical existence. They think that I am reaching past the genesis of physical existence and attempting to define the origins of pre-physical existence (imperatives and qualifier/definer agents), but I would be irresponsible if I made such a claim. I am physical, and as such, I can only know the physical and can only know that through the application of those imperatives and qualifier/definer agents. Where those come from, and why, I wish anyone good luck in chasing those down.

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.

Processing information (imagining) or being the subject of information involves units of activity. Information is created by activity. It reflects the event, unit to unit. Unit of activity = unit of information reflecting that unit of activity. This is the sub-structural essence of physical existence in a nutshell. These units become organized, and structure is established. It's extremely simple, and yet, with the symbiosis between information and activity, incredible development has occurred.

('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.

I realize that the statement comes from The Emerald Tablet of Hermes, and has been translated to mean a variety of things, but the truth of it, when viewed as a simple description of design redundancy as the essence of existential efficiency and efficacy, is irrefutable. Much of what we have been passed has been improperly translated by folks who could only understand it relative to their own moment in human history. The physical looping orbit is as primitive a redundant motion as exists. This orbit arrangement ensures the prolonged existence of a specific, identifiable event in the most efficient and reliable means available to the ultra-primitive causal organization whole. Again, this will seem insignificant to the extremely sophisticated conscious mind, but for the causal unit seeking some form of survival via identity association, this was breakthrough stuff.

That planets and moons orbit is no surprise. This level of organized event survival happens at all levels of physical existence. Even between fully expressed matrix wholes.

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 read the page in your link (although the link itself was not workable) and I realize that there are shortcomings that have been detected, but they have to do with the scalability of the theory, which I can certainly see being possible. That said, the concept of the orbit is not debunked in that segment of the theory's entire depiction. Also, the notion of sub-atomic orbits is defended vigorously in other segments of that overall presentation, even if the fullness of the Bohr Model contains controversial aspects. I was referring to the orbit itself as a redundant organized activity. Whether a spinning electron, a spinning magnet within an electric motor or a spinning planet, the orbital motion itself is a classic example of existential redundancy.

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?

Thank you for some high quality challenges here. I appreciated them very much. The book is already out and the link in my signature will take you to the sale page on Amazon. It's not a physics book, nor is it a spiritualism book. It's actually a theology presentation that refuses to devolve into faith-based religionism. I reject religionism and I don't believe in spirits. That said, I do believe that we are the product of a deliberate effort by an intelligent life form. In the book, I explain what that life form "looks like", how it is relatable to what we are, and what the plan is behind the effort that it initiated. I also explain why the human race has invented religions as a direct response to the clues that have been scattered about for thousands of years concerning this being and its intentions.

It's extremely recognizable and normal in many ways, and extremely counterintuitive in other key aspects. All in all, the approach is very unique.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


I've just been following, or not following as the case may be, your exchange with Noreaster of about 6 months ago. At one point you said

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.

Two problems? One having to do with time and the other having to do with space? Before I read further I need to stop and say that's a knee slapper. Time and space.