[Fredrick]

Okay, Nobody, maybe I am the one who needs to be careful with using language for it can indeed be confusing.

Reality as we know it came from somewhere. Reality can be seen as a stick with a beginning and an end. The stick, first existing in a potential state, is created in that elsewhere. For reality to take a hold as our reality, the stick was bent and then bent some more until it broke somewhere in the middle. The two butt ends of the stick did not become part of our reality; they still exist in that somewhere else (dark matter). Our universe is not a perfect place, it is the result of an accident (or two). At the point where the two butts now exists, logic does not have an ordinary place. The remainder (our universe) is based on itself, yet itself is unlimited (as in the pieces of the broken bent stick (broken in the middle) flying away without restriction. Yet the pieces themselves are limited.

I hope you don't mind me using different examples/ideas to show the same. I have experienced that using a different example can shed light on an issue (though, I must admit, it can be confusing all by itself as well).

The Big Bang is according to me not a big bang, but an outward moving slowly materializing mass, a mass that — once it has taken on its shape — is subjected to laws that did not exist before. I would call that the Big Conflict (in stead of the Big Bang), for matter had established itself first (and was most likely moving towards further establishment) before the Big Conflict could take place.

[N0B0DY]

No problem using various examples, Fredrick. I'm actually looking for different ways to explain different scenarios pictorially, as Einstein did, to facilitate understanding. But they have to first be understood by me for there to be any type of comparisons made. I can get my head around the balloon analogy, which would conform to Kirchoff's Law of what goes in must come out, but you've gone and bursted it with a stick now. Purposely promoting shapes and reality, I understand.

It appears to me from your analogy that dark matter and dark energy exists, but is unobservable. This is not about language problems. We either have to claim it exists or it doesn't, otherwise we are not remaining contextually consistent. To say that the universe, uni versus, is omniverse - all-inclusive - of any and all possible universes, and that is the problem I have with Lloyd, Dave and others who focus on the empirical and theoretical, but stop there. Even string theorists, who are considered a joke to mainstream scientists, posit membranes as universal separators - lacking the gist of what I want to discuss, which is the state of the whole of the whole of all wholes, and then to discuss the "internal" functioning between the whole/hole. That abstract divider between the one that is never reached and the none that is never reached, primarily because absolutes don't and can't exist.

Therefore, because there are no such things as spaces in between anything if we are to consistently proclaim that "everything" is absolutely connected, all relative functioning must be abstract to prevent ourselves from making contradictory statements.

[N0B0DY]

I disagree with most of the following, but remember you, Lloyd, mentioning something along the lines of a cyclic universe, and thought it might fit in with your own ideas you're interested in.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Last week, we introduced a cyclic model of the universe proposed by physicist Peter Lynds, who says that his model not only solves Kant's infinite versus finite universe paradox, but also resolves the mystery of the origin of the universe itself. Lynds' model predicts that the universe will contract toward a big crunch, but instead of a singularity ever being reached, events will reverse and the universe will again expand from a subsequent big bang. Unlike previous cyclic models, Lynds' does not breach any physical laws, as his model has entropy continuing to increase as a result of events being reversed.


If he's correct, then we live in a universe where there is no past or present, and one that is deterministic, even if it is impossible for us to recognize it as such. But there are a number of pressing questions in regard to Lynds' model. How does it fit in with current research that claims that the universe will expand forever? Does Lynds' model imply that the universe somehow "knows" to play events over and over? And will we all have to relive our lives backward?

But first, let's examine how Lynds came to the conclusion that events must reverse rather than end in a singularity. Lynds contends that singularities never appear in nature, and the reason why he draws this conclusion is pretty much the key to his whole model. Assuming that the universe does contract toward a big crunch, Lynds explains that as the universe gets progressively smaller and, as a result, increasingly hotter, gravity would become so strong that nothing would escape. Which means, importantly, that heat would not escape.

Lynds uses a balloon analogy to illustrate his point, explaining that the hot air inside a balloon would become denser as the balloon continued to expand. But the balloon eventually reaches a critical point where the balloon bursts, and the hot air is released to merge with the cooler air. Ok, nothing new here. But Lynds goes on to explain that when applied to a closed universe, with (unlike the balloon), nothing beyond its self-contained boundaries, there is nowhere for heat to escape to, and that "hot could not flow to cold" as would be expected. Continuing, Lynds says that: "As everything continued to become more and more condensed, heat could only flow, of itself, from hot to hotter," concluding that this situation would "suggest a violation of the second law of thermodynamics."

Lynds draws attention to the fact that people such as Stephen Hawking and Austrian astrophysicist Thomas Gold reasoned that if the second law were to be breached, then all physical processes would go into reverse, or, to put it another way: "that events would take place in the direction in which entropy was decreasing, rather than increasing as we observe today." Gold and Hawking further assumed that entropy would continue to decrease as the universe contracted toward a big crunch. But as Lynds points out, if the one-way, asymmetric, irreversible second law does hold, then entropy should continue to increase regardless. In this respect, Lynds contends that rather than breaching the second law, where entropy may be forced to decrease rather than increase, "the order of events should simply reverse."

A. Universe expands from the big bang.

B. Point at which, as the universe approaches a big crunch (C), the second law of thermodynamics would be breached in direction B to C.

C to B. Order of events reverse so entropy can continue increasing. Universe expands from big crunch (reversed) with no singularity being encountered, very quickly reaching original point at which the second law of thermodynamics would have been breached had events not reversed.

A to B. Faces order of events in which entropy is decreasing (B to A). Rather than second law being breached, the order of events reverse once more, with no big bang singularity being encountered.

It is this reasoning that has given rise to Lynds' conclusion that no singularity can ever be reached, as events would be reversed before the second law could be breached. The implication of this, if you haven't already guessed, is that the reversing of events at the first available opportunity would represent the big bang, with the added implication that this process not only leads the universe toward the big bang, but also causes it.

Following from this, he says, is the expansion and development of a universe identical in every way to the last one. But even more important, according to Lynds, is the realization that what we are really saying is that the big crunch caused the big bang, as well as being equally true to say that the big bang caused the big crunch. Voila! Our contrived notions of past and present become redundant. "One is now faced with a universe that has neither a beginning nor end in time," contends Lynds, "but yet is also finite and needs no beginning. The finite versus infinite universe paradox of Kant completely disappears." Lynds model also shows that time travel is not possible.

These revelations imply that the universe is non-cyclic. "Crucially, if one thinks about what is actually happening in respect to time, no universe is in the future or past of another one. It is exactly the same version, once, and it is non-cyclic," explains Lynds. "There is no infinite number of universes. It is one in the same." Not one to be hung up on semantic hair-splitting, Lynds puts such classifications down to our inherent concept of time. "If the past and future are thought of in a regular way, with a meaningful differentiation being made between them, then the model can be interpreted as being cyclic," says Lynds. "If properly taking into account what is happening in respect to time in it, however, the model means that the universe happens only once. I guess that it will probably be classed as being cyclic, though, and that's fine."

Aside from such relatively trivial problems as finding an appropriate name for the model, and more profound problems such as not ever being able to test it, Lynds has identified at least one potential problem with his model. After a cursory glance at the model, some people may view Lynds' universe as somehow being able to "anticipate future or past events in exact detail, and then play them over at will. How could the universe possibly know?" But Lynds' response to this is to just reiterate what his model represents, which is a universe with no past, present, or any one moment that is any more special than another; "all events and times in the universe would already be mapped out," he says.

But are there any other problems with Lynds' model? What about black holes, aren't they a glaring example of a singularity in nature? After all, no less than Roger Penrose proposed in 1965 that if Einstein's general theory of relativity was correct, then a singularity must reside in the heart of a black hole. While Lynds appreciates the similarities between a black hole and a big crunch, rather than conceding that a big crunch must also contract into a singularity, he contradicts Penrose by again outlining the mechanics behind his own model; this time applying it to black holes.

A to B. Matter falls into black hole, beyond its event horizon.

B. Point at which, as matter approaches black hole singularity (C), the second law of thermodynamics would be breached in direction B to C.

C to B. Order of events reverse so entropy can continue increasing. Matter moves outwards from where black hole singularity would have been had events not reversed, with no singularity being encountered.

C to B. Matter reaches original point at which the second law of thermodynamics would have been breached had events not reversed (B), and faces order of events B to A with entropy decreasing in this direction. As the outer region is the dominant system, order of events B to C reverses again.

But Lynds also says that a black hole and a big crunch are really quite different scenarios, as a black hole represents a very localized area of space, while a big crunch represents the entire universe (think back to Lynds' balloon analogy). "This would suggest," explains Lynds, "that as events reached this point inside the black hole, because the region outside of the reversed region would easily be the dominant system, the order of events of the universe outside would take precedence and not be reversed." This would mean that no matter would be able to escape once it has entered the reversed region of a black hole, even though matter could still enter from the universe outside. "As soon as it entered, however, it would immediately be reversed: instead of contracting towards a singularity, it would be moving away from it," adds Lynds.

But while Lynds may be able to present a case for black holes that is consistent with his model, there is one other problem that may yet close the door on his cyclic model: dark energy.

It was Adam Reiss, professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, who first proposed dark energy in 1998, and it is considered to be the mysterious force that is responsible for the acceleration and infinite expansion of the universe. Dark energy is consistent with Einstein's earlier, but later abandoned, concept of the cosmological constant, which acts as a negative repulsive force, or a kind of anti-gravity. "We watch this cosmic tug-of-war on the largest possible scales, on the scale of the whole universe," said Reiss in a recent radio interview, "and we see how dark matter and dark energy fight each other as they try to make the universe either expand faster, in the case of dark energy, or slow down and stop expanding, in the case of dark matter."

But Lynds is not entirely alone as Reiss believes that more needs to be understood about dark energy before anyone can be sure that continued acceleration and expansion of the universe will continue. Asked by BBC's Sue Broom what lay ahead, knowing what he does about dark energy, Reiss replied: "We are faced with the problem that we don't understand the basic physics of the dark energy. And so, we don't know whether it's static, like Einstein predicted, or whether it is changing in strength. If it is, if it does turn out to be Einstein's model - that there's energy in the vacuum of space - then over time there will only be more and more space, so more and more of this energy. And so, if that's the case, the universe will expand forever; it will accelerate so that eventually galaxies will be so far apart that light won't even travel between them. But it's also possible that dark energy is changing in its strength, and so then all bets are off. I mean we really have to understand dark energy before we can predict the future."
But until new understanding does come to light, we are left to ponder, if correct, the implications of Lynds' new model of the universe. How, if at all, does it change the way that we view the universe? How comfortable are we with the model's philosophical implications, where our lives are already mapped out before us? And does it even matter, since we really can be none the wiser of our ultimate fate? Despite Lynds' model rendering the past, present, forward and backward meaningless, one thing's for sure; we are probably stuck with our concept of time. "In contrast to cultural and religious influences on our concept of it," says Lynds, "I think that we are stuck with our intuitive notions of time, as I think they are often inextricably linked to how we think and are psychologically wired." Somehow I find that very human sentiment far more comforting than the idea of a cold, yo-yoing cosmological immortality.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/lynds2.shtml

[Infinite Consciousness]

[quote=N0B0DY;29904]If IT is the one which measures and differentiates, then IT is forced to partake in the never-ending process of measuring and differentiating. Resulting in IT's incapacity for realizing absolute oneness and unity, and resulting in somewhat of an absolute snare.

Though I would say that we are all partially correct in our assessment of measurements. Only that we can realize that "one" without measure is synonymous to no measurement at all.

It is difficult not to see that religious contexts come into play, based on bathing in bliss for all eternity unified with the eternal one. That the "I" refuses to die and egoistic tendencies prevent self-sacrifice and the realization that the reality of the "I" is a mighty persistent illusion. QUOTE]

Nobody, If the "ONE" is absolute i.e Pure Existence - Pure Awareness - Pure Bliss - and they are the underlying base of all life everywhere - the absolute is complete within Itself. Then measuring - differentiating - and thought - is an illusion because we are using them to define an illusion.

"IT" does not measure or differentiate "IT" is what exists beyond all measure and all differentiating. "We" measure and differentiate in a quest to realize and understand what lies beyond all measure - all differentiation - and in fact all thought - as "IT" the Absolute lies beyond all measure - all differentiation - and all thought - how on earth or any other planet can we reach or even approach "IT" by those methods when "IT" is the Truth complete within "ITSELF" that lies beyond them ? ? ?

In Vedanta, illusion is described as being that which is not there, and yet which seems to be there. The Spiritual Masters agree with this, but qualify the statement by explaining that the Attributable and the Attribute are not different things, but are the Expresser and that which He Expresses.

At the higher stage there is pradhan or principle, prakriti or nature, and maya or illusion. Pradhan is that which connects the material with the spiritual and is the highest aspect. The aspect of illusion of maya is the means of balancing everything - that is our intellect.

Illusion is not separate from God and is sustained by Him, but of itself has no existence; it is "nothing" and yet it is there. If you can fully understand this, then creation (matter) becomes very simple: for the whole of creation (matter) is under the influence of illusion, which can also be called forgetfulness.

When we forget ourselves and we forget that which lies behind "everything" (and which in fact is the Theory and Truth of Everything), the Creator, then we are lost in illusion. Illusion is like a huge serpent embracing the world -- it eats those who serve it.

In all three planes - the physical, astral, and causal - illision is holding everyone in its clutches. Its aspects are not separate - they come from the same source - (the mind and its - thinking, measuring, and differentiating) but there is a difference.

If a certain mango turns red in color when it is ripe, one cannot say that the color is not part of the fruit, and yet it has no identity, being but the mango's expression. Creation is a manifestation of the absolute, yet it has no identity, being but the expression of the Creator as the Expresser.

Tulsidas is explaining a very deep subject, which is hard for anything but the advanced intellect to understand. So how does one gain the understanding ? This world you see is the form of God; His form is apparent. The Lord and sustainer becomes apparent when one's Spiritual Eye is opened - one sees that He is the very foundation of all illusion and that all expressions of it are His Form.

Paradoxically, it is the Lord's Form and it is not His Form. His Form is not apparent to one who is deep in forgetfulness and involved in illusion's enjoyments wbhich are a grand play or trap set to ensnare our wandering attention.

When the inner eye opens, then we see everything as it truly is, and the illusion fades away, and this is how the illusion exists but does not exist.

The advice of the Spiritual Teachers is to gain salvation while living in the world, by developing that latent or inner eye with which one can see the Truth - the Truth which unfolds itself automatically when our angle of vision changes and we see everything in a truer light.

The problem here in our quest for the T.O.E. is similar to the picture of the pretty young lady who will change right before your eyes into an ugly old hag when you change your angle of vision as Robert so aptly points out in Re: Who will create the TOE ? Page # 9 - Post # 83.

If we cannot - or refuse to - chance our angle of vision - we will never see the other side - we will remain ignorant of the Truth which lies beyond all illusion !

[N0B0DY]

Well, I looked back to post 589 because I was sure that you had said IT is the one that differentiates and measures, but I guess I misread you because now I can see what you're saying.

First, I appreciate that you're one of the few who verifies things through experience and what you say is not just words. And I can appreciate the ancient masters' interpretation of the illusion of duality. Yet they're interpretation of the whole is another "thing" that seems to exist, but doesn't.

It can't exist because when we rid our minds of concepts of duality, we have to rid our minds of concepts of separation. And when we do this, there can no longer be any concept of motion, mass, space, energy, consciousness, etc.. There would be no in itself or outside itself, and this is why I revert to the WuChi (without pole) state to better express my position.

Though, we go back a long way, IC, and there just might be a way to equate the one and zero. Because I agree with pretty much everything else you write, your one might be considered pole-less as well, so we might be debating over a trivial matter.

[Fredrick]

Thank you, Nobody, for a whole lot of information.

I like the Romance languages quite a lot, but looking at some Germanic languages and see what they have to say about the universe is quite revealing. In German, the universe is know as 'All,' and you can see why I don't have to translate that word into anything else to make it understandable for us already. In opposition to 'It' this word is much better at describing what the universe is. And while 'all' in English is plural, 'All' in German is singular. In Dutch, it becomes even more interesting since they say 'heelal,' literally translated as 'whole-all.' As you can imagine, it is easy to say that duality is expressed within this singular word about everything. The word 'Raum' (from German) and 'rymd' (from Swedish) are not that outspokenly clear, as they are the same as the Germanic-English word 'room,' which can nevertheless still be translated into the Romance-English word 'space.'

I do not believe singularity exists on this side of matter (and I have great doubts we can state that the other side is singular either, for we (and the universe) are disconnected from that side, hence not forming a unit when viewed together either — though the other side may try to come across as singular). As you can understand, I prefer to not state too much about the other side, because only half-vague generalizations apply, not specifications.

I have anticipated the moment when scientisits were coming back from their singular view on the Black Hole Theory, and are now turning this theory more into a Gray Hole Theory (though most hold on to it being singular), with some matter not disappearing, but being spewed out by the two vents. Not to be funny (okay, a little bit), but since ash is coming out of these holes, it may be better to call them 'Ash-holes.'

I heard about Lynds a few weeks ago, and tried to contact him (and his team) to find out if they were interested in my mathematical information, but I never heard back from them. For me, the question whether the universe is cyclical or just a one-time-stretch (with an origin theory I call Empty Nest) is not that important. In both cases the origin is hidden in itself, and what we find is that the universe is result-based only (see Buddhism). To use the stick of the imagined origin again with only the bent-and-broken center having become materialized, time aspects are expressed within each piece of the broken stick. An example of this phenomenon is know to us quite well: babies are born and old people die at the same moment, young and old people live their lives, showing that each person is on his or her own track from their past to their future. Even cultures appear to be running on tracks, with some still in the stone age (and who may even desire to stay there) and others in what may be described as the 23rd century, far ahead of me. Time is a personal-and-group experience. To subsequently say that time is linear negates the complexity of this framework; it should be seen as going in all directions (though individually still going from past to future, but collectively going in all directions), and it is at the crossings of each others' lines that we can view the past of 'ourselves' and the future of 'ourselves' — no matter where in time we are — but only if the conditions are right. All in all, it is a precarious subject matter, since each of us must follow our own past towards future track, and glimpses of either, beyond our own momentum, cannot be other than a bit confusing/distracting.

While I tend to still say 'him' too, Infinite Consciousness, when refering to god, I am aware it is a misnomer. Old habits are hard to break, but important if we want to get it right. Even 'her' or 'it' is a misnomer, for only one word (plus an additional one) applies here, the word: god — godself. Assigning gender to god is proclaiming knowledge about god, something we cannot know with certainty, and what is a falsification if we tried. Only by using the word correctly can the message be communicated properly. Equalwise, to proclaim god as a singularity is again overstepping our knowledge, and what is a claim on the very being of god that cannot be confirmed. I would still state that god is, and not god are, but would do that on the grounds that any abstraction is most often written in the singular form. If we imagine god to equal a group than it is easy to see how that would still receive a singular is-form. It would then read as: the group is the encompassing entity of the highest level of consciousness. However, proclaining god to be a group would also cross the same line, for that knowledge cannot be known. Still, by using the word properly, we can at least stop confusing each other with words like 'him,' 'her,' 'it,' or 'they.'

Again, the pyramid may help out, since only the bottom corners are actual representations of reality, and individually each is, while collectively they are. In top we find the collective state again, but this time melded into a 'one,' which then receives a singular verbage of is. May the force be with you is considered a single thing, but now you know it isn't. 'The force' are four/five forces combined as a single group — and don't try to steer all wheels in a different direction at the same time because it won't work.

Since I believe that the calculations about gravity are off (for gravity is not placed in the right context by current physicists), I need to refrain myself from stating that dark matter and energy are shown to exist through calculations of gravity in our universe. Yet, I would not be surprised that once the calculations are done right, that we still need to use these terms to describe our universe correctly. But who knows. Rather than needing the dark energy and dark matter to be in an equilibrium, we need to be foremost in an 'advantaged' position to remain materialized.

[Infinite Consciousness]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Well, I looked back to post 589 because I was sure that you had said IT is the one that differentiates and measures, but I guess I misread you because now I can see what you're saying.

First, I appreciate that you're one of the few who verifies things through experience and what you say is not just words. And I can appreciate the ancient masters' interpretation of the illusion of duality. Yet they're interpretation of the whole is another "thing" that seems to exist, but doesn't.

It can't exist because when we rid our minds of concepts of duality, we have to rid our minds of concepts of separation. And when we do this, there can no longer be any concept of motion, mass, space, energy, consciousness, etc.. There would be no in itself or outside itself, and this is why I revert to the WuChi (without pole) state to better express my position.

Though, we go back a long way, IC, and there just might be a way to equate the one and zero. Because I agree with pretty much everything else you write, your one might be considered pole-less as well, so we might be debating over a trivial matter.

NOBODY, Thank You, you honor my Spiritual Teacher who showed me the way and pulled me out of mind and matter. Please say hello to Plato for me - i miss him - and respect him - and wish all the best for him.

Please explain WuChi (without pole) are you referring to the manifest negative and positive poles in creation and the "IS" Unmanifest state beyond them ? Please keep it simple ?

[N0B0DY]

Fredrick,

There's never a need to thank me. We all help each other in various ways to various degrees whether we intend to or not. Like that wiseman, or fool, who once said you can learn what to do from a wiseman or what not to do from a fool, the result is the same. The bottom line being it is each of us who determines who the wisemen and fools are.

With regards to the languages, I think there are commonalities in all of them, especially when we use them contextually to explain ourselves. As long as we elaborate enough when defining terms, everyone should be able to get the gist of our scenarios. It is said that people understand better pictorially, so I like the idea of using analogies. Which brings us to yours and Lynds'.

As far as I can tell, I like yours better because it leaves more room for the mechanics I have in mind to work. His balloon analogy reaching a breaking point where heat wouldn't escape doesn't ring true for me, because the boundaries ofthe balloon itself must be based on interior heat for it to expand - it is sort of like taking the analogous boundary of a balloon as a literal balloon that would pop, when the boundary represent radiation that should continue to expand. In other words, if there is no allowance for further expansion into "nothingness," then there would be no initial expansion possible, and for this reason the analogy fails to explain the mechanics properly. Plus a few more instances of improper mechanics which you touched upon that make it ill-conceived, imo.

Yours on the other hand, doesn't seem to imply the existence of a singularity (which according to Lynds, exists but is never reached because of its inverted gravitational force). If I'm not mistaken, it seems to imply that if the forces of one universe were reciprocated that another universe would exist identical to this one, with its own forward time from past to future. Eventhough only one is observable.

I had mentioned to Lloyd that dark matter and energy should be linked to other universes, and that all forces should be considered electromagnetic - including gravity - though range is all-important because the bulk strength is required to bind particles. Where most scientists, understandably, focused more on macroscopic effects, the cause of the effects are logically the result of cumulative microscopic effects - the microscopic ingredients of the macroscopic cake. If the universe has evidence of a fractal nature, which I think it does, the functioning has to remain throughout the super-galactic to the sub-quantum.

Yet, eventhough the function remains the same infinitely, when we consider spacetime incrementally instead of macroscopically, every conceivable point in spacetime is the point where forces invert to allow for an infinite number of universes. This would be the "heelal" that would represent both "negative" and "positive" infinity, and the math then becomes very simple, to the tune of 1-1=0. So the empirical and theoretical when extended equates the 1 to the 0, by way of the 1 representing both positive and negative 1 simultaneously. That is the only way I would concede to the existence of an absolute one, as long as others are to concede to the one being simultaneously negated to none. That without a break in symmetry, motion is impossible.

Three hours later...just one more thing. You had said that the pyramid at the top represents unification of forces, whereas the bottom represents the reality of separate forces, but at the top I remember you saying something about carrying the shape of the pyramid throughout all levels. My question is, at the extreme north does the pyramidal shape remain? If not, what shape would that supreme pole have?

[N0B0DY]

No need to thank me either, IC, I honor everyone for adding to spiritual insight. Plato, I haven't seen in a while. Contrary to my seeming popularity there, I don't think too many folks cared about my ways, so I decided to give it a rest.

The WuChi or WuJi (zero) is the unmanifest which is the potential state for the manifest TaiChi (one) which is the potential for Yin/Yang (two) which leads to the combined TaiChi and Yin/Yang (three) - sort of like the one Earth with two poles, and the Tao is the functioning of the infinite number of variable degrees of the Yin and Yang.

Yet, like everything else, there are different interpretations that might fit better with your own picture of reality.

[N0B0DY]

Just wanted to say also, IC, that I consider all individuals to be walking alone together. Salvation being a personal endeavor.

If you remember one Pharaoh who had his heart hardened, to say that there is no free will - we all learn at our own pace. Even Jesus' prayers weren't answered before he was taken away, and he is said to have been praying to his father.