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 this fall, and became "Cognitive" of itself.
"Aware", "Waved" back upon itself from the "Singularity" of "Will".
The "Action" of "Aware", moved by "Will", "Waving" back upon itself, created "Whirl's of Motion", within the "Volume of its Being".
"Aware" filled with its first "Impression", of falling in upon itself, is drawn by this "Impression" to the centre of the "Whirl's of Motion", creating "Vortex's of Aware Action".
"Aware", "Being" all there is, powered by "Will", filled with "Potential", using the "Vortex's of Aware Action", set forth through the "Art of Evolution", to be all it can "Be".

[dleviwing]

This is your TOE theory

[PoPpAScience]

Hi David,

If I am talking about the conception of everything we see today, then yes, this is my TOE. My tread here is just the beginning of what I will be adding on later dates. I am only two weeks into contemplating the missing link I had in my Theory. The link between the conception era and infancy era of our Universe. Thanks to Vincent and his interest in Vortex's, my imagination is once again percolating with my new visions of tiny Vortex's of "Aware" as the building blocks of Evolution.

I am dealing in a era of Universe that has very little knowledge to relate to, and leaves me with using words that best fit what I see in my minds eye. I know that the word "Aware" turns off the majority of viewers, and I could have used the word Either instead. But, I like to use the word that best fits what is needed to describe the Evolving nature of this Universe, and that is "Aware". "Aware" best fits the descriptive word need to describe something that seems to have the ability to record experiences in order to evolve into more then it was before.

"Aware" even evolved into the consciousness that you use to read this post. Now, if you look up from your computer without thinking, you will for a fleeting moment experience "Aware" at its purest form. That purest form, of seeking experiences.

My theory is more for people that believe that the Universe is a living, evolving Entity that was born and is growing to what every it can Be. My theory will never end up in a text book, but it might inspire others to see the Universe in a different way, to inspire them to new thoughts.

Thanks for even your limited response to my post David, I respect your opinions, and seek your knowledge written here in this forum.

[analog]

Hello Allen,

I see where you thanked my last post, and though I didn't know it when I was writing it, I guess it relates to this discussion. Being as you read my current attempt to describe how I view consciousness, I would only add that perhaps if we stop viewing consciousness as an active element in our world and give consideration to it possibly being a passive element, a whole new realization of life might open up to us.

Then life takes the view that the fingers above that stroked the keyboard aren't at the mercy of consciousness, but rather the real motions that are universal life. Consciousness then takes the role of recognized interactions.

Perhaps consciousness could never move a rock because it doesn't create action/motion within our universal system, or our body, perhaps it merely records the events that do happen within our proximity of awarness. It might not can move rocks, but it will allow you to recall the last time one hit you in the head.

My current feelings tell me that anytime we build a physical system to describe our world and we admit to any physical interaction of the fundamental substance/substances being repetitive, thus able to be predicted due to its/their nature, then we are admitting to some sort of a plank level of consciousness. We could attribute certain action/reaction to things such as the geometry/shape of the fundamental participants, but how does nature tell two spheres what to do in the event of a collision, perhaps, consciously.

Perhaps, when enough physical interactions take place within a small enough portion of space (life), our acknowledgement is merely the instantaneous universal calculations, as they take place within our mind, of what just happened, and how everything reacted as it should.

I hope this makes sense.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi analog;

For starters I like to respond to the moving a rock idea. We have many distinct forces that science acknoledges, and work with, that would not move a rock.

Just like DNA is a recent discovery and is an amazing way to store information, someday we might be able to capture an electrical brain impulse and discover an electrical type DNA substance embedded in it. But first we have to get main stream science to look for it.

More to come......

[PoPpAScience]

Hi analog;

Now, I do agree totally to the above statement of yours, when it comes to the material world. I feel that evolution responds to the totality of all experiences stored in the core substance of our universe. That is why I like to call this core substance "Aware", for its ability to store experiences, then influence creation subconsciously. I never think of the universal consciousness as thinking what to do, but knowing how to do from random interactions.

Scientist love to talk about universal laws that govern our material world, but never talk about where the information that governs these laws is stored. If this information is stored at the plank level as you said, and I feel it is, then why does it store this information and release it. Why would the "dumb dead" core substance of this Universe, that scientist love to support, store and release information that runs their physical world?

more to come....

[analog]

hello again Allen,

You can call me Tim.

I don't believe in any of the forces of modern science. I believe they are misconceptions of the only true interaction, motion. Thus, rocks move with the flow of the rest of the universe, as do we.

Any plausible definition of an entity as mysterious and fundamental as consciousness, can only be given relative to a universal framework. Thus, any answer I submit will be due to how I view it within my own system of universal fundamentals that I believe creates our percieved world.

To me, unless we can explain all things, we can explain nothing, because everything is related. I think I'll add that to my signature.

My opinions on life/consciousness are still in development as I have applied much more time to the more obvious fundamental physical entities that build our world, and the interactions they use to build it. It is only recently that my framework has reached a point to allow me to even consider the essence of life/consciousness, and I haven't refined my views on them to a point that I am satisfied. I will try to do this, however, so that I may respond to any exchange of ideas you may be interested in having.

I do believe that life is a fundamental of existence, and though it appears to be a universally local phenomenon, the furthest voids of space are governed by the same universal laws that allow for it to thrive here on Earth.

Galaxies, stars, and planets all appear as they do, and exist for a reason, as does life, and the reason is the same for all of them. Whomever truly finds that reason will have truly found a real "Theory of Everything", because only in the greatest story ever told will all these seemingly different entities be found relative.

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Tim;

When it comes to the consciousness that influences life entities, I feel that there is whole nother level of evolved consciousness. This level of consciousness responds to the special abilities of the animated entities that call upon it. The human brain is one of those special abilities that draws from the Universal memory bank that is at the core of all there is.

[PoPpAScience]

Tim;
You sure had a lot of incites in your last post.

hello again Allen,

You can call me Tim.

I don't believe in any of the forces of modern science. I believe they are misconceptions of the only true interaction, motion. Thus, rocks move with the flow of the rest of the universe, as do we.

I agree totally with your statement. I feel also that all forces are manifested due to motion. I feel that the motion of a 1D entity I call "Aware", in a Vortex, manifests force. I also feel that the interaction of multiple vortices, say like quarks in a proton, give dimension and substance to 1D "Aware".

Any plausible definition of an entity as mysterious and fundamental as consciousness, can only be given relative to a universal framework. Thus, any answer I submit will be due to how I view it within my own system of universal fundamentals that I believe creates our percieved world.

I agree totally with this statement also. I have come to my view on the conception of this universe, only by studying what is relative to the universal framework. The only difference is that I contemplate the views of all those, that wish to express an opinion on their system of universe fundamentals. In fact I can never get enough of unique ideas to consume and contemplate.

To me, unless we can explain all things, we can explain nothing, because everything is related. I think I'll add that to my signature.

No truer statement then what you say here. I think it makes a great signature.

My opinions on life/consciousness are still in development as I have applied much more time to the more obvious fundamental physical entities that build our world, and the interactions they use to build it. It is only recently that my framework has reached a point to allow me to even consider the essence of life/consciousness, and I haven't refined my views on them to a point that I am satisfied. I will try to do this, however, so that I may respond to any exchange of ideas you may be interested in having.

I feel that one can not truly understand the inner workings of consciousness, without having a core knowledge, as you state, of the "fundamental physical entities that build our world". I know that there is no way that I could think of consciousness the way I do without studying the core fundamental physics. Then combining the core physical knowledge, with the study of all the religions, psychologies, the Science of Mind, etc....

I do believe that life is a fundamental of existence, and though it appears to be a universally local phenomenon, the furthest voids of space are governed by the same universal laws that allow for it to thrive here on Earth.

Galaxies, stars, and planets all appear as they do, and exist for a reason, as does life, and the reason is the same for all of them. Whomever truly finds that reason will have truly found a real "Theory of Everything", because only in the greatest story ever told will all these seemingly different entities be found relative.

This is my quest Tim, to find this theory that incorporates all that we see in this universe. Not just the physical, but also the ideals that seem so prominent in our existence.

[analog]

Hello Allen,

I’ve read your idea as you asked me to, and though it seems a little confusing to me, I do recognize the amount of pure thought you must have put within it. I see that there is a path of logic within it, but I’m having trouble walking that path, because I don’t allow myself to possibly reach as far within a framework as I feel that you are. I have my reasons for this, and I’ll try to explain.

It’s hard to perceive someone’s tone within written words, so let me be clear that, in no way, am I trying to argue or place my own intelligence above yours. I admire people who take the time to learn their world, because I am constantly surrounded by those who don’t, and I admire your desire to exchange ideas, because there are those who insist that only they are right. I am not one of those people. Your theories and ideas could very well be more plausible than mine, but my job here is to convey how I currently think, and that will be all that I’m trying to do.

That being said, let me explain why I find the need to shut off the thought process when formulating a fundamental framework, because a thought process here is merely a reduction process, whereby we are trying to reduce everything down to a fundamental level, thus the standard model insists that all things come from a singularity, which is a normal path of logic in a framework which admits to energy bound matter. I don’t agree with the standard model.

I choose to view our world as an eternal system, thus salvaging my mind from the seemingly endless paradoxes of, WHY. I feel the only way to stop an endless progression of WHY’s is an eternal framework, thus, no WHY’s needed. An eternal framework isn’t expected to give answers into infinity, it’s just expected to do that which it has always done and will always do, thus infinitely existing. The only question asked of an eternal system is HOW, and I believe, when faced with the two, HOW can more easily be explained then WHY.

Being as any framework must admit to fundamental entities, a finite framework with a beginning and an end will always be subjected to what caused existence of the fundamentals, which allows for the need of more fundamentals. This seems to be an endless intellectual downward spiral, which ultimately ends up with the never ending need for a fundamental of the fundamentals, at this stage we are admitting that something must have been here all the time anyway. Why not just bring universal existence down to the physical fundamentals that accurately describe our entire perceived world, and except those things as the eternal components?

If we must admit to the presence of matter, give it a fundamental existence. If we must admit to a void of space, give it a fundamental existence, and if we must admit to consciousness, allow it to have a fundamental existence also. There doesn’t have to be a need to bring all of these individual fundamentals down to a singularity, because no one said that only a singular form of existence could be eternal.

It is at this stage of fundamentals that all we need are matter as a particle, or aether, a way for it to interact (motion), and a place for these interactions to transpire (space). The only place for consciousness to hide within such a system of fundamentals must be within the interactions of these three. Thus, when matter interacts by way of motion through space, it must give rise to some sort of consciousness, which could merely be viewed as the law of interaction of matter in space by motion, thus allowing us to measure these events due to cause always producing the same effect. Perhaps, we can’t measure consciousness because it is that which allows for measurement and is the scale by which we go by.

Even if the above entities could be reduced down to a singular existence, unless the mechanism that allows for this reduction still influences their actions/existence after their separation from the singularity, then it is irrelevant anyway. The standard model shows us how hard it is to maintain such a mechanism from a singularity to an inflating universe, as it is constantly creating new entities to explain the old ones it just admitted to.

I say this because I get the impression from your work that you are trying to reduce to a singular entity. Would this be a fair statement?