Paradox of Potential popped Aware

[PoPpAScience]

Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

In the beginning there was, "The Paradox of Potential".
Out of this "Paradox of Potential", "Popped Aware".
"Aware" moved inward upon itself, into the "Abyss of Infinity and Eternity".
By the act of "Will", "Aware" stopped, and became "Cognitive" of itself.
From the "Singularity" of "Will", "Aware" "Waved" back upon itself.
"Aware", "Being" all there is, set forth through the "Art of Evolution", to be all it can "Be

[NotStein]

Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

In the beginning there was, "The Paradox of Potential".
Out of this "Paradox of Potential", "Popped Aware".
"Aware" moved inward upon itself, into the "Abyss of Infinity and Eternity".
By the act of "Will", "Aware" stopped, and became "Cognitive" of itself.
From the "Singularity" of "Will", "Aware" "Waved" back upon itself.
"Aware", "Being" all there is, set forth through the "Art of Evolution", to be all it can "Be

What're you smokin'? Can you send me some?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

That made me laugh, PoPpAScience. I like your sense of humor...

Lloyd

Paradox of Potential popped Aware.

In the beginning there was, "The Paradox of Potential".
Out of this "Paradox of Potential", "Popped Aware".
"Aware" moved inward upon itself, into the "Abyss of Infinity and Eternity".
By the act of "Will", "Aware" stopped, and became "Cognitive" of itself.
From the "Singularity" of "Will", "Aware" "Waved" back upon itself.
"Aware", "Being" all there is, set forth through the "Art of Evolution", to be all it can "Be

[PoPpAScience]

What're you smokin'? Can you send me some?

That made me laugh, PoPpAScience. I like your sense of humor...

Lloyd

I did not want to respond to your post, Lloyd Gillespie or NotStein, because your responses are the norm, when I express my view. I have only had one person in 10 years actually ask why I wrote this, all others respond with child like responses, as you two did, or just post what they see reality as. Even though I laugh all the time at the posts, of people like you two, I never post in a immature way as you two did.
Now I know that 99 plus percent of people express themselves through the work of others, and rarely if ever, expand their minds beyond the norm. Even though I know this, I still hope and pray each day that there are those out there that think about the questions like:
Where did the singularity come from?
What was or is the medium that the Big Bang expanded into?
If the Universe is Mind. What is the Mind made of and where did it come from?
ect...
Now you two, and others like you two, may not be interested in those questions. That's fine. But to enter a tread only to act like a spoiled child, must be addressed. I would never enter your treads and act this way.

[N0B0DY]

"Where did the singularity come from? What was or is the medium that the Big Bang expanded into? If the Universe is Mind. What is the Mind made of and where did it come from?"

At another forum, these types of questions were ridiculed beyond belief, but they are legitimate questions that are ridiculed because those that think they know don't know as much as they think.

I would say that the singularity doesn't exist; the medium doesn't exist; and the universal mind is made of both of the above.

Yet, by default, the absolute state is divided into two absolute counter measures and an infinite number of relative measures: one being expansive, represented by one; the other contractive, represented by zero; and "in between" is what is sensorially-observed in part through consciousness or awareness.

[PoPpAScience]

"Where did the singularity come from? What was or is the medium that the Big Bang expanded into? If the Universe is Mind. What is the Mind made of and where did it come from?"

At another forum, these types of questions were ridiculed beyond belief, but they are legitimate questions that are ridiculed because those that think they know don't know as much as they think.

I would say that the singularity doesn't exist; the medium doesn't exist; and the universal mind is made of both of the above.

Yet, by default, the absolute state is divided into two absolute counter measures and an infinite number of relative measures: one being expansive, represented by one; the other contractive, represented by zero; and "in between" is what is sensorially-observed in part through consciousness or awareness.

LOL...LOL...HeHe...LoL, I'm sorry Nobody, give me a minute to compose myself. I have never posted this way before, but I can not help myself. Giggle... After I just made a post, stating how no one enters my thread with out making a child like response or posting only their own view, you did both. LOL...LOL. Sorry again.

Now with you I understand this because I've noticed your posts over the last two days of looking around this forum, and all your posts are almost identical. The majority have your child like, arrogant statement, that all others know nothing. Then you go onto repeating endlessly your mantra of all knowing. If I was to take your 920 posts and put them side by side, I would be willing to bet that the majority of them would be Identical.

The main reason I am responding this way, is because in another forum that I joined a month ago, we have been discussing how great it was to be able to talk about anything without the "unthinking rationalists" flooding the treads with gobbligook of nothing new. We agreed that if more people were to join that it surely would go that way. That is what caught me so funny, that you just made the statement on how the ideas of others that you disagree with, and others like you, will flood any free thinking treads with ridicule.

I came in and left this forum 15 months ago because of this fact. I found it frustrating to see wonderful threads of others, being flooded by "unthinking rationalists". And, 15 months later I see the same thing going on. Sad, so sad.

[neutralino]

Where did the singularity come from?
What was or is the medium that the Big Bang expanded into

I imagine that you won't like my response, because I am probably an "unthinking rationalist" i.e. one who believes in the laws of physics .

Anyway to answer your questions:
1. There is, in nature, no such thing as a singularity. If a singularity arises in a mathematical theory, then this simply means that the theory cannot describe that point; i.e. the big bang model cannot describe what happened at t=0. However, when we have a quantum theory of gravity, we would expect this to disappear.
2. The universe is not expanding "into" anything; it is the space itself that is expanding. This may be difficult to imagine at first, but its the only way one can imagine it.

[PoPpAScience]

I imagine that you won't like my response, because I am probably an "unthinking rationalist" i.e. one who believes in the laws of physics .

Anyway to answer your questions:
1. There is, in nature, no such thing as a singularity. If a singularity arises in a mathematical theory, then this simply means that the theory cannot describe that point; i.e. the big bang model cannot describe what happened at t=0. However, when we have a quantum theory of gravity, we would expect this to disappear.
2. The universe is not expanding "into" anything; it is the space itself that is expanding. This may be difficult to imagine at first, but its the only way one can imagine it.

neutralino, I like to first respond to the positive side of your post. Your "1." statement is positive in the way it is put forward for me to respond to.
I agree, in Nature there is no thing as Singularity. In the Big Bang theory, they talk about a singularity that the Universe expanded from. That is what I think of, when I think of singularity, strictly the beginning.

I would respond to this with a question. Are you saying that once a theory of gravity is found, then we may be able to work the math back to the singularity of the Big Bang?

The first part of your "2." statement, I could agree with more. In fact, not only can I imagine the universe Being within itself, I feel the equation to set it in motion, could be: " V=4pi(-r)^3/3 " And (-r), would be a number generator starting at '0', adding 1 consecutively, into infinity.

Now, do I think this is absolute, no. But I am not afraid that my brain will explode if I try to stretch my mind beyond the norm, just like Einstein did. New incites only come from thinking beyond the norm.

Now, to all the negative parts of your post:
First, there is the child like response with the roll of the eyes.
Second, the false statement that one who believes in the laws of physics, is an "unthinking rationalist".

[neutralino]

neutralino, I like to first respond to the positive side of your post. Your "1." statement is positive in the way it is put forward for me to respond to.
I agree, in Nature there is no thing as Singularity. In the Big Bang theory, they talk about a singularity that the Universe expanded from. That is what I think of, when I think of singularity, strictly the beginning.

I would respond to this with a question. Are you saying that once a theory of gravity is found, then we may be able to work the math back to the singularity of the Big Bang?

Once we have a quantum theory of gravity then we expect there to be no singularity at the moment of the big bang; i.e. we will be able to use the theory to describe what happened then.

The first part of your "2." statement, I could agree with more. In fact, not only can I imagine the universe Being within itself, I feel the equation to set it in motion, could be: " V=4pi(-r)^3/3 " And (-r), would be a number generator starting at '0', adding 1 consecutively, into infinity.

I don't know what you mean. You seem to have some volume function, but then say ir consists of a "number generator." This makes no sense to me, since it does not describe the volume as a function of position.

Now, to all the negative parts of your post:
First, there is the child like response with the roll of the eyes.

It's hardly child-like. You say in your post that your threads get people commenting on them with "nothing new"and that these people are "unthinking realists." Well, I have introduced nothing new to your post, and thus I must fall into this category of person!

[PoPpAScience]

This is a great post, Nobody. I really miss understood your post above and I am so sorry. I let my anger over others cloud my ability to see straight. The only time I let myself get mad in a forum turned into a disaster for me.

A few years back I endeavored to prove the opposite of what was normally endeavored by atheists and theists. Instead of trying to prove the existence and non-existence of God, I tried to prove the non-existence of the universe to lessen the friction between the religious and scientific communities.

A few caught the gist, a few didn't, but the more we looked into the religious texts and scientific theories, the more similarities kept popping up that made people go hmmm. Like the one god and the one universe; the many gods and the many forces and phenomena of nature; Akhenaten's spiritual-light creator and SLAC's physical-light creator; all knowledge, power and presence being contained within the universe and god.

Pretty much anything attributed to god can be attributed to the universe, to the extent that preachers are teaching science and scientists are bearing witness to the power of god. What's the difference? The forever mysterious universe is the forever mysterious god.

Perhaps the supernatural god is really the subnatural workings of the universe, and we can all be happy campers knowing that we really don't know much about anything. As the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss," because seeking too much knowledge too fast can give you a mighty headache.
I think it's interpretational in the sense that both communities are studying the same circumstantial evidence, but drawing different conclusions as to the scope of the causes. I wouldn't say that it is all that illogical to conclude that a creator is required for the creation of complex systems, much like a creator is required for the creation of a complex computer system. It has been proven that even bacteria are extremely complex and remarkably intelligent.

I think it depends on the religion as well, as some religious texts depict all individuals as existing within god and god within all individuals. The same can be said to apply to the universe. If my religion is based on god being the universe and my church is the whole world, without changing anything whatsoever with respect to the universe, then even atheists would have no choice but to be my fellow churchgoers.

Scientists are brutally honest though, I'll give you that. They are concerned with in-the-box effects and will be the first to admit it, never claiming to know the absolute truth, only what is generally accepted as adequate explanations for certain phenomena. Yet, for me, when out-the-box causes are introduced it often sheds new philosophical light on both religious and scientific interpretations that render preconceived notions obsolete.