[PoPpAScience]

Originally Posted by analog Allen, Please take this constructively, as that is how it's intended, because I think it might help you on your journey. I, too, used to view life formations as something spectacular, but I don't feel it got me very far in my quest to truly understand. I was trying to make the sun go around the Earth again. For some reason we must feel that we are at the center of not only our universe, but all of creation. I don't feel that the universe was created to sustain life, I feel that life is an effect to help sustain an eternal universe. Our bodies and our interactions are merely part of the mechanism, and I don't feel that a true understanding of our universal system will be obtained until we can allow for ourselves to become an equally important part of the system, not just the reason for it. All things within an eternal framework are equally important and work to maintain it as a whole. If any one was more important than the other, would it not be finite? Now that I've found my place in the world, and realise it's not at the center, I can enjoy a much better understanding of a planet going around a sun.

Hi Tim;

I have an answer to your vortex question, but it is still not settled into my minds eye. I have just become a student of the dynamics of the vortex, and thus have not reduced the technical aspects of its wording to simpler expressive words. This is how I try to express myself, into the simplest of simplistic words. On a later date I will express an answer to you Tim.

Now I would like to reply to your last post. I like to clear one thing up. I do not believe that life is the reason that our universe came into being. I believe that life is the logical outcome of a universe constantly seeking to be more then it was before. I see life as this universe reaching within itself to be more aware of its nature, its potentiality. I see you, I, and other life forms, as this universe experiencing itself. I do not see this universe as thinking what to do next, but having the inherent ability to do more, be more. I see the universe as a conceived entity that is evolving(growing), to be far more then it is today.

I do feel that we are, as you state "an equally important part of the system". We are at the centre right now of the evaluational process. The universe is experiencing in new and wonderful ways, ways that it could not do before life evolved. We effect the core of this universe, because we are the core of this universe, in manifestation form.

I am dealing in a area of discovery, that I personally can not find any other human on earth doing, and believe me I have looked hard for another. I have to deal with the fact, that because of the oppressive nature of main stream science upon its peers, to not wander outside of the language of its core beliefs, that I have to wander alone. I see this fear all the time amongst very intelligent people. I understand how this fear of being disrespected among their peers can put restrictive road blocks deep in their minds, that they are not aware of.

I also have to deal with the fact that those who come from the spiritual side of discovery, latch onto one belief system or another, and thus also become satisfied with their new found spiritualness and venture no further. They see the universe as created by God, and are content. Others see the universe as a universal mind that moves life to a rhythm of loveliness and peace, and become content. Well I have been through all those aspects of both paths of discovery, and chose to not be content. I decided instead push the envelope of thinking, to come to a new understanding of the way things are. I hope that there is others, to join me on quest.

I thank you Tim for entering my thread and conversing with me , it is much appreciated.

[analog]

Thanks for having me, Allen.

The only roadblocks in my mind are thrown up when I can't describe something by the interactions of fundamental entities. I think the system that best reflects our world, while making the fewest presumptions is probably the closest to being right.

If the universal framework we seek could be captured as a single image, and we all painted a portrait of it, the one who's painting best reflected it, while using the least amount of colors, would be the one I would want to hang on the wall of my mind. In my opinion, the painter who realised, that all of the seemingly endless colors that make up our world was merely the effect created by mixing only a fundamental few, would have the best chance of matching all of the many shades of existence.

This is the logic that I use to probe the world around me, and I wanted to share it with you, hoping that it will help you in your ever important journey of trying to become a true artist of our world. At the least, I truly believe that you will find understanding within your own mind. The hardest part of your journey will be when others view the portrait you've spent so much time painting, paying so much attention to every curve, shade and detail, and they fail to see its true beauty, as if viewing it through colorblind eyes.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't paint your portrait to hang it on the wall of someone elses mind. Paint it to beautify your own wall. Paint because you love to paint, and paint because of the breathtaking view before you, even if your the only one standing on top of the intellectual mountain from which you look down at the universal landscape below. Perhaps, someday your renderings will allow those, who are lesser climbers, to get a glimpse of the view from the top.

Never stop painting.

If you believe in your own words, and the universe is truly trying to learn and explore itself, then you, my friend, can be proud of the life you've led, because you have done that which is your essence, as you've devoted your precious time to learn the nature of the very thing that brought you forth.

I can only hope that I have contributed to the pallet of colors, which resides within your mind, in some way. If I can be of any more help, don't hesitate to contact me.

Keep painting my friend,

Tim

[PoPpAScience]

Tim my friend;

It's been a pleasure having you.

I do not think I can add anything to such an eloquent post(above). Your post is a pleasure to read, and contemplate. It will be heart warming to come back and read it when I need a pick me up. Your interaction in my thread has been informative and rewarding, thanks.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Hi Popa,

The reason your potential has to be is, I think, also, is that potential has to come between nothing and something, for an absolute nothing cannot happen (or be maintained), since evidently, something popped out, and this something could not have been around forever, for, how could that be and, also, how could that something have been the right and workable stuff for our universe.

Therefore, similar to the quantum world, there must be potential or possibility (what I call it), as this ends the infinite regress of things being made of smaller and smaller things.

This potential is ‘before’ all physical laws, for they would not have existed ‘then’, plus, there was no ‘then’ in the way that we know time, since time requires movement. All workable probabilities of possibilities were open. There were no constraints.

Perhaps, if all the relative forces were to be added up, the sum would be zero, but the absolute nothing always unbalances itself…

As for random evolution amounting to something more and more complex, I like to think so since there were billions of years for this to happen and eternities for other ‘wrong’ stuff to pop out ’elsewhere’ that never amounted to much of anything.

As for awareness, perhaps the apparent entanglement of everything with everything can always recreate the whole locally, as in a hologram, light carrying the information that defines objects—kind of like awareness makes up the dispositions underlying reality, which helps our experiencing of it.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi austin;

I first want to post this thank you, before I converse on your post above.

This is a big day in my house. My wife would first like to thank you, because she no longer has to hear we whine about how there is no one that seems to get the drift of my theory. She has had to listen to me express my theory over and over again, for over a decade.

I like to thank you now, because until I read your post this morning, my theory had a sense of non-authenticity to me. I believed in it very strongly, but could not understand what was missing in the way I was expressing it. Seeing you express what I see, in your own words, now gives my theory authenticity to my mind.

I did receive a wonderful private message this week from someone who expressed an interest, and nicely worded expression of my theory, but was still needing time to wrap his head around my theory before he posted here.

Even though your post above could almost stand alone in expressing what I see, I would like to express some further thoughts on your views. But first I would like to ask you a question:

Have you always seen things this way, or did you pick up some insights from reading my thread?

I'll wait for your reply to this question before I post a reply to your wonderful post above.
Once again thanks, you do not know how much it has meant to me to read your post.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Poppa,

Your thread awakened some of my previous interests in "possibility".

Some ideas are in this short-lived thread:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/theory...vel-space.html


I remember a another, similar thread somewhere—I'll have to look for it later…

I just can't fathom how quarks or whatever existing forever were a guarantee to our glorious complexity, but I do notice that everything seems to go from the simple to the complex.

Glad I made your day. All the other avenues don't seem to go anywhere (or go forever down).

[PoPpAScience]

Hi austin:

Glad that I awakened your previous interests. I read your thread, and see that you were in the same ball park as me. I see you using the word potential throughout, but prefer "possibility". I sure wish I seen your thread before, it would have not been short lived. I hope I can advance your interests even more here.

First I like to say that in describing the start of all there is, and what there was before this universe, we can only use words of today to get our thoughts across. I have tried to use the words that best describe the "Action" I am thinking about.

Take "Potential" for starters. I thought very hard about what is the one thing that I can say was absolutely at the start of this universe, that could be argued for. "Potential" is what stood out in my mind the strongest, because after all we are here, and that means that there absolutely had to be, "Potential" in the beginning.

When it came to describing the "Action" of "Aware" popping out of the paradoxical nature of "Potential". I had to think of what could come out of "Potential", that had its same nature. What I visualized was, an "Idea". An "Idea" has both of the paradoxical natures of "Potential". An "Idea" is made of 'nothing', and yet is 'something'.

Next there had to be an opening for this 'nothing something' "Idea" to pop through. I thought of a '0-dimensional point' as the best description. From the instance this '0-dimensional point' popped open, I thought that the "Idea" of "Aware" had to moved in upon itself, fore it had no where to move out into. I was not comfortable with it popping into a medium of "Potential".

It took a few years to think of how this "Idea" of "Aware", could move in upon itself from a '0-dimensional point'. Then one day while looking at the equation for the volume of a sphere it hit me, that if I added a negative sign to (r^3) in the equation, that maybe instead of expanding out into a medium, it could instead expand in upon itself. This worked for me because, if I looked at it from the point of view that everything is relative to the viewer, then "Aware" being the only viewer, expanding in upon itself would be only relative to "Aware". The equation might not work in everyday math, but the thought of it does.

The best way I can describe this falling upon itself, is to imagine if you where standing in a sphere of say 6 feet in circumference. Now if you where to shrink, to say one billion billion times smaller, when you stop shrinking, would not your perspective change from being in a small sphere, to a very large one? This is how I envision "Aware" falling in upon itself into 'infinity' for 'eternity'.

In summary to this point; From the great 'nothing something' of "Paradox of Potential", an "Idea" of "Aware" popped through a 0-dimensional point that became a sphere relative in size only to the view of the viewer, "Aware".

Then came my best thought yet, and that was "Aware" having the "Will" to stop its fall into 'infinity for 'eternity'. This made "Aware" cognitive of its being. From there "Aware" took the long evaluational path, that lead to us thinking about the beginning. Us, the same "Aware" as in the beginning, in manifested form.

This part of my theory I feel very comfortable about, the rest is a work in progress. I have always hoped that I could have conversations about the period between the "Singularity" of "Will", and the sciences of today. Maybe this might happen soon.

I hope this adds more to your interests austin.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Yes, good point that we’re here—and so potential had to be there make us possible, and, I might add, we would have to be in such a place. (note that we’ve dispensed with the notion of some or one right fundamental thing having been around forever that worked perfectly for no apparent reason. And that a perfect absolute nothing without potential would stay as such.)

Were there other places that became from some spewed inert stuff that had no potential? Does the timeless-formless ‘try’ everything in no time and in all forms? (Brute force)

Was the ‘incredible luck’ that led our universe via the basic stuff to space to gravity to stars to atoms to molecules to cells to life to brains to experiences to consciousness really remarkable, or not so, given that it had to be stumbled upon eventually, given all of time?

It impossible for us, even with computer and math, to solve the three-body problem, so it’s difficult to propose an underlying fundament awareness that could foresee all, especially at the earliest simplest point, for we don’t wish for any composite, non-fundamental systems at that earliest point. Thus, your 0-dimensional simple beginning somehow grew to feedback upon itself and form awareness, much like Hofstader proposes the strange loops forming a cascade of symbols leading to consciousness.

Yes, this is a lot of hand-waving, but, as you say, we are stuck with today’s words, and perhaps whatever started reality is now long gone and beyond our grasp.

But we can still ask questions like ‘Given all this, how should we live our lives?’

What happened after the TOE’s early doings is something we can at least get a handle on, but will never be as interesting as the TOE, although it still affects our outlook on the human condition.

Here I tried to speculate on such in post #180, ‘The Meadows of Heaven’:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/cosmol...html#post46233

Although I have since changed the last part to say ‘…some of the luckiest sons and daughters of being…’

Finally, there’s an old thread that attempts to tell how our being works from movement of appearances through space at our human level, for the TOE must explain EVERYTHING, relating it all back to the simple entities.

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...g-reality.html

Is the quantum world inside the Planck length where the potential might be, or must it be deeper than that—even what gave rise to the quantum world?

Should the accepted superposition of all possibilities in the quantum world be taken as proof that our potential/posssibility theory should be taken more seriously that there's more to all than nothing or something?

[PoPpAScience]

Hi austin;

I took time to read your post here and the links you supplied, so that I could give my best reply.

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com Yes, good point that we’re here—and so potential had to be there make us possible, and, I might add, we would have to be in such a place. (note that we’ve dispensed with the notion of some or one right fundamental thing having been around forever that worked perfectly for no apparent reason. And that a perfect absolute nothing without potential would stay as such.)

I love how you worded this, "a perfect absolute nothing without potential would stay as such". That is the big point. "Potential" gave birth to that which best represented it, and that would be to me an, "Idea". An "Idea" is a 'nothing something' just like "Potential". The only thing this "Idea" needed to give it direction was, to be "Aware". The "Idea" of "Aware" popped forth from the "Paradox of Potential", giving 'something' to 'nothing'.

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com Were there other places that became from some spewed inert stuff that had no potential? Does the timeless-formless ‘try’ everything in no time and in all forms? (Brute force)

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com Was the ‘incredible luck’ that led our universe via the basic stuff to space to gravity to stars to atoms to molecules to cells to life to brains to experiences to consciousness really remarkable, or not so, given that it had to be stumbled upon eventually, given all of time?

I personally do not see any 'incredible luck' to our universe. I also do not think of it as 'remarkable'. I see the point where the Universe is now, as "inevitable". I see the universe evolving to the point it is now, by using all the tools "inherent" to it, and those learned along the way. What are called chaotic interactions to many, is called the "Art of Evolution" to me. I see the life we see today as the "inevitable" outcome of the path our universe took through the "Art of Evolution". If that path evolved any differently then it did, then so would of Life. Just as I see life on other planets, being a product of their environment, I see all 'possible' life in other universes as being products of their environment.

If the parameters of the evolution of matter had evolved differently in the past, then so would the "inevitable" outcome, and look of life. Thus, I feel very strongly that life is not the outcome of random luck, but the "inevitable" outcome of "Aware" moving through the "Art of Evolution".

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com It impossible for us, even with computer and math, to solve the three-body problem, so it’s difficult to propose an underlying fundament awareness that could foresee all, especially at the earliest simplest point, for we don’t wish for any composite, non-fundamental systems at that earliest point. Thus, your 0-dimensional simple beginning somehow grew to feedback upon itself and form awareness, much like Hofstader proposes the strange loops forming a cascade of symbols leading to consciousness. Yes, this is a lot of hand-waving, but, as you say, we are stuck with today’s words, and perhaps whatever started reality is now long gone and beyond our grasp. But we can still ask questions like ‘Given all this, how should we live our lives?’ What happened after the TOE’s early doings is something we can at least get a handle on, but will never be as interesting as the TOE, although it still affects our outlook on the human condition. Here I tried to speculate on such in post #180, ‘The Meadows of Heaven’: http://www.toequest.com/forum/cosmol...html#post46233 Although I have since changed the last part to say ‘…some of the luckiest sons and daughters of being…’ Finally, there’s an old thread that attempts to tell how our being works from movement of appearances through space at our human level, for the TOE must explain EVERYTHING, relating it all back to the simple entities. http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...g-reality.html Is the quantum world inside the Planck length where the potential might be, or must it be deeper than that—even what gave rise to the quantum world? Should the accepted superposition of all possibilities in the quantum world be taken as proof that our potential/posssibility theory should be taken more seriously that there's more to all than nothing or something?

In reply to the rest of your post, I believe if humanity can survive the insanity of the 'Ego' era, we will do the experiments that are needed to reach further into the sub atomic world. When we are able to capture and study 'quarks', this is when the age of 'scientific enlightenment' will change the opinions of the those that promote, 'dead dumb matter'.

I agree totally that the TOE must include everything that there is, and not just the combining of the 4 forces into a new theory. I personally believe that a theory showing the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces in combination, as being the cause of the effect we call gravity. As only the first step to seeing a bigger TOE that includes the core entity that causes the effect of the forces. Only when the forces are combined in a new theory, will the seekers move onto the next great, as you say, "accepted superpostion of all possiblities in the quantum world".