A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

hey Ben,
Do I know `reality` ? No I don't ? Do you know ?
`reality` is `now` that just rushed backward into the void.
But don't fret, here comes another one !
Reality doesn't really exist,
it just imagination !

Hi Mud, conceptually I understand it as being all that is, so logically there is nothing beyond it. Rather reality is beyond the thinking mind to apprehend, for as it is said, the Tao that is spoken of is not the eternal Tao. Opinions about it are as diverse as there are minds thinking about it, but the still mind free from thought is one with it.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhh....to Tao......steps to the non-ending finality,
seeking the un-viewable transparency of nothingness !
There are no `free` minds, only un-filled gnosis.
The learned level that one has obtained,
the satisfaction that one is pleased with that.
Ahhhh...that the level be higher !
Reality doesn't exist !

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ahhhhh....to Tao......steps to the non-ending finality,
seeking the un-viewable transparency of nothingness !
There are no `free` minds, only un-filled gnosis.
The learned level that one has obtained,
the satisfaction that one is pleased with that.
Ahhhh...that the level be higher !
Reality doesn't exist !

It is not unusual for those who have obtained a certain learned level, to believe there is nothing beyond what they presently know, and they are satisfied and pleased with that, all else is garbage.

But then there are those who obtain a certain level but are soon unsatisfied and are pleased to move on and go beyond, ahhhh....that the level be higher.

Evolution evolves, leaders emerge, the sheep follow, all is as it should be, everything is getting done.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhh......that's the way it should be,
I'm not too sure it is !

 

[godnotgod]

Simple. Information is produced in any causal interaction where the result is limited in the types of causes it has.

So, for example, a ball-shaped hole through a window provides information on the size and type of ball that went through that window. Any interaction that preserves the form of that hole will also preserve that information. If it changes the form of the hole, but in a way that still places limits on the ball, then the information was 'processed' into another form of information. This can clearly happen even without an intelligence.
.

I had to think about this for awhile and let it gel, and then I realized that the simple answer is that the intelligence is in the initiator of the original action, namely, the human throwing the ball through the window, thereby creating the information. Think about it as one seamless and continuous action. In fact, when you really analyze your example, there is no 'ball thrower' that creates information; there is only 'information creation' itself, without an agent of information creation.

And so, you see, the intelligence and the information are one and the same.

 

[godnotgod]

So you are still masturbating and pointing schoolyard fingers

And masturbating to irrelevant waffle by the looks of your post once again you are jumping for faith without actually giving an explanation other than "something"

It is here that there is a jumping off point from the world of the ordinary conditioned mind of Reason, Logic, and Analysis which demands rational explanations and factual evidence for 'something' for which none exists, as 'something' is beyond the limited reach of the grasping mind. However, it is this very 'something' which even the scientist and sceptic are in pursuit of, or rather, it is this 'something' which is the very thing responsible for prompting their pursuit, though they are unaware of it. We do have today a handful of scientists who have come to the realization that clinical analysis and reductionism just won't do; that there is 'something' far greater to come to terms with, and which places their science within the correct context, and not the other way around, as the ordinary scientist would have it.

Your initial knee-jerk reaction to Polymath's knee-jerk response to my post continues ad nauseum. Is there something i might do to help you put an end to your Pavlovian fatuity?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, we are part of the universe, subject to the physical laws and a product of the physics and chemistry of the universe.

Yes, the universe has parts. It isn't 'seamless' in the sense you are wanting.

Show me where it is not seamless. Show me these 'parts'.
'Parts' is just an idea in your head. No such 'parts' exist in actual Reality.

 

[ChristineM]

It is here that there is a jumping off point from the world of the ordinary conditioned mind of Reason, Logic, and Analysis which demands rational explanations and factual evidence for 'something' for which none exists, as 'something' is beyond the limited reach of the grasping mind. However, it is this very 'something' which even the scientist and sceptic are in pursuit of, or rather, it is this 'something' which is the very thing responsible for prompting their pursuit, though they are unaware of it. We do have today a handful of scientists who have come to the realization that clinical analysis and reductionism just won't do; that there is 'something' far greater to come to terms with, and which places their science within the correct context, and not the other way around, as the ordinary scientist would have it.

Your initial knee-jerk reaction to Polymath's knee-jerk response to my post continues ad nauseum. Is there something i might do to help you put an end to your Pavlovian fatuity?

Me thinks the godnotgod doth protests too much

I did not react to Polymath, you did and i commented on your reaction.

Sure you can help, you could honestly admit your fixation

 

[godnotgod]

Me thinks the godnotgod doth protests too much

I did not react to Polymath, you did and i commented on your reaction.

Sure you can help, you could honestly admit your fixation

No, you're wrong: Polymath originally latched onto masturbation, and then you immediately knee-jerked onto it too. I had nothing to do with it.

So tell me: how long have you had this fixation?

 

[ChristineM]

No, you're wrong: Polymath originally latched onto masturbation, and then you immediately knee-jerked onto it too. I had nothing to do with it.

So tell me: how long have you had this fixation?

Poly, A Universe from Nothing?
"I always loved the masturbatory universe model!"

You A Universe from Nothing?
"What's that you say? You can relate to such an idea on a personal basis?"

Me A Universe from Nothing?
"Whatever turns you on"

From there you ran at it like a dog with 2 d***s

Just to prove you are being dishonest again

 

[godnotgod]

Poly, A Universe from Nothing?
"I always loved the masturbatory universe model!"

You A Universe from Nothing?
"What's that you say? You can relate to such an idea on a personal basis?"

Me A Universe from Nothing?
"Whatever turns you on"

From there you ran at it like a dog with 2 d***s

Just to prove you are being dishonest again

Nah, it is YOU, The Dishonest One, since I am NOT one of the FIRST RESPONDERS. 'tis you and Poly that salivated to the Pavlovian ringing of the bells. I am in the capacity of Dr. Pavlov, the Observer and Note-Taker. That is all.

So, you know, you CAN get over your fixation. There ARE cures for such juvenile behavior, you know.

 

[godnotgod]

Ahhhhh....to Tao......steps to the non-ending finality,
seeking the un-viewable transparency of nothingness !
There are no `free` minds, only un-filled gnosis.
The learned level that one has obtained,
the satisfaction that one is pleased with that.
Ahhhh...that the level be higher !
Reality doesn't exist !

Don't be silly! Of course it does. But 'you', as the ego known as 'I' does not. Once this is fully realized, you will awaken to true Reality, which has been right in front of you since the very beginning.

 

[godnotgod]

This is just strangely wrong.

For example, there is not *knowledge* involved when vineagar and baking soda react to give off carbon dioxide. That is simply how the chemicals interact. No consciousness required.

Our don't have to 'know' how to process food. If they make the digestive chemicals, they *will* digest the food. The body doesn't 'read' the food coming in as much as 'read' the simple fact that it exists and produces the chemicals to digest.

The value of the food to the body isn't in the information, but in the chemical nature of the food. It is how the chemicals in the food interact in the body that is important, not where the food came from.

In order to produce and apply the correct chemicals, the body must first identify what exactly it must apply those chemicals to. That is done via recognition, and recognition is just another way of saying 'reading the information'. The kind of food, ie carbs, proteins, fats, sugars, etc. are processed accordingly. The body must know how to recognize them for what they are first, THEN it can react chemically with them to digest them. This should be obvious.

No, of course we don't know how to digest our food, beat our hearts, synapse the brain neurons, oxygenate the blood, cleanse via the liver and kidneys, etc. Consciousness has already pre-programmed us with those autonomic functions, so that we don't need to pay upfront attention to them, and can instead concentrate and focus on what is going on in our immediate situation.

You don't know that the vinegar and baking soda reaction is an unconscious process; you just assume that based upon your conditioned mind.

 

[godnotgod]

1. Consciousness.
2. Intelligence.

And I am not sure if you follow Hinduism or Buddhism, because I sometimes confuse your posts with Ben.

The "soul" would be another human characteristics you have superimposed on the universe, BUT ONLY IF YOU BELIEVE IN BRAHMAN, the "Cosmic Consciousness" or "Cosmic Soul".

If I am wrong about this assumption about you in regarding to Brahman, then I am sorry, and will take it back.

So how do you know that consciousness and/or intelligence are not the fundamental realities? How do you know that conscious intelligent beings did not emerge from a conscious and intelligent universe?

 

[gnostic]

How do you know that conscious intelligent beings did not emerge from a conscious and intelligent universe?

Ok. I agree with only some parts of your above question.

The part where it say intelligent beings emerge from the universe, that part we can all agree.

We are only here after the formation of our solar system, particularly with the Earth, which include the formation of the atmosphere and water, so that life could begin here. After more than 4 billion years, humans - the Homo sapiens - appeared around 200,000 years ago.

We are the only creatures on Earth that seek to know what up in the sky, to learn what those stars are.

It is only less than the last half a millennium, that we no longer associate the stars with spiritual entities, angels or demons. And that Sun didn't revolve the stationary Earth.

But we are only 2 years shy of a full century, that we learn the Milky Way isn't our entire universe. (In 1919, Edwin Hubble was the one who discovered that there were other galaxies beside the Milky Way.)

In the next decade, 3 physicists - Alexander Friedmann (1922), Howard Percy Robertson (1925-26) and Georges Lemaître (1927) - came up with cosmology model of the expanding universe (later better known as the Big Bang model, in 1948-49) that would revolutionise the way think about the universe.

All this, leading us to take out the silly superstitions out of science.

What I disagree with your question is that you want to put these superstitions back into science, with the baseless pseudoscience notion that the universe is "intelligent" and "conscious".

You want to claim that the universe is "intelligent" or "conscious", then by all mean, show us the verifiable evidences the universe is "intelligent" and "conscious".

You are the one who made positive claim of cosmic "intelligence" and "consciousness", then the burden of proof is actually yours, not mine. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences, but as Hitchens said, a claim made without evidences, can be dismissed without evidences.

 

[godnotgod]

The part where it say intelligent beings emerge from the universe, that part we can all agree.

What I disagree with your question is that you want to put these superstitions back into science, with the baseless pseudoscience notion that the universe is "intelligent" and "conscious".

You want to claim that the universe is "intelligent" or "conscious", then by all mean, show us the verifiable evidences the universe is "intelligent" and "conscious".

You are the one who made positive claim of cosmic "intelligence" and "consciousness", then the burden of proof is actually yours, not mine. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences, but as Hitchens said, a claim made without evidences, can be dismissed without evidences.

You said you agree that intelligent beings emerge from the universe. What I meant was that intelligent beings emerged from an intelligent universe in one continuous action. You, as an intelligent being, are a total action of something intelligent on a much larger scale, one that your limited mind does not understand, in the same way that a wave is a total action of the vast ocean. Both wave and ocean have something in common: they are both made of the same stuff: water, and you are made of the same stuff as the universe, and that is consciousness, but your limited mind thinks it can set up a scenario with subjective consciousness over here called 'I', and an unconscious universe over there as an object. It's just an illusion that the rational mind entertains, thinking such divisions to be real, because they are based upon superficial appearances, and fails to see into the true nature of things.

So once again, I ask: if such a separation between conscious and unconscious exist, where does your consciousness leave off, and the unconscious universe begin?

Why is saying that the universe is conscious and intelligent putting superstition back into science? I never said such a thing, because science lacks the necessary tools to determine whether the universe is conscious or not. It's view is conditioned and limited. Another kind of view is required in order to know this, and that view is one transcendent of that of the ordinary conditioned mind, which is only capable of seeing things in terms of a subject/object split, a split that is arbitrary and contrived, one that does not actually exist in reality. It's just a mental exercise, and has no bearing on things as they actually exist.

But you have not answered my question: How do you know that consciousness and/or intelligence are not the fundamental realities? How do you know that conscious intelligent beings did not emerge from a conscious and intelligent universe? You don't, because you have been conditioned to think otherwise; that the brain is the source of consciousness.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...the presence of a conscience intelligence, before birth of ones mind ?
seems to be a preeminent unforeseen existence before the pre-bang BB,
or does it have nothing to do with those circumstances ?
What's question ??

 

[ChristineM]

Nah, it is YOU, The Dishonest One, since I am NOT one of the FIRST RESPONDERS. 'tis you and Poly that salivated to the Pavlovian ringing of the bells. I am in the capacity of Dr. Pavlov, the Observer and Note-Taker. That is all.

So, you know, you CAN get over your fixation. There ARE cures for such juvenile behavior, you know.

I cited the sequence of posts and content, which shows you can deceive yourself all you want, all it proves is that you are deceiving yourself.

 

[godnotgod]

Ahhh...the presence of a conscience intelligence, before birth of ones mind ?
seems to be a preeminent unforeseen existence before the pre-bang BB,
or does it have nothing to do with those circumstances ?
What's question ??

There is no 'before' or 'after' in the world of consciousness, but there is in the world of mind, because mind is always in time and space, whereas consciousness is not limited to time, space, or causation. Consciousness does not come and go as mind does. It is mind that comes out of consciousness, and not the other way around. But mind is an illusion; a self-created principle. Stop the mind and only pure consciousness remains. When the mind stops, so does 'I' cease to be, and so there is no beginning or end to any such self called 'I', since both are products of the illusory mind. Only consciousness, which always is, which is Unborn, Unconditioned, Uncaused, is real; is the fundamental reality. It is just another word for The Absolute, or The Universe, and as Vivekenanda tells us:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"

The BB was/is an event in consciousness. Man superimposes the concepts of Time, Space, and Causation over this event to make it appear linear in nature.

The consciousness that you think of as 'mine' is not yours; it is the consciousness of the universe, just as the water in the ocean wave is not the exclusive property of the wave, but is universal to both wave and ocean. When this is realized, there will then be freedom from the imaginary shackles that mind imposes.

 

[godnotgod]

I cited the sequence of posts and content, which shows you can deceive yourself all you want, all it proves is that you are deceiving yourself.

FACT: I originally said that consciousness was playing itself as the universe in all its myriad forms, to which Polymath knee-jerk responded by equating it with masturbation, to which I protested, and to which you then jumped in with your snide comment 'whatever turns you on'. I am not the initiator of the notion of masturbation, nor the one feeding it.

Story end.