How did everything really begin?

[Greylorn]

You are actually referring to God, but are to shy to say it, however I agree with you , because up to now it is the only answer that has any meaning, in my opinion, of course?

 

 

 

I'm only shy around women, never around intellectual environments.

 

My theories encompass a creator-concept which is difficult to relate to the traditional God-concept. I do not believe that the interesting aspects of the universe, especially the beginings of things, and certainly not human consciousness, can be adequately explained in terms of random phenomena and mysterious singularities.

 

However, the classical God-concept is, to me, logically untenable and inconsistent with observations. (E.g: if God is indeed omnipotent, He should have created the universe in an instant. Why fuss around for six days, whatever that means?)

 

Greylorn Ell. Digital Universe -- Analog Soul. A politically incorrect, but logical and empirically relevant book about the beginnings of things.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Greylorn,

 

After reading a few of your posts, I think it's perhaps time staff remind you that this forum is not the place to advertise your book.

[Greylorn]

!

Moderator Note

Greylorn,

 

After reading a few of your posts, I think it's perhaps time staff remind you that this forum is not the place to advertise your book.

 

Okay. If my comments here provoke any interesting questions that cannot be answered in 50 words or less, I'd like to be able to refer queries to a source where they can find the answers. Would it be okay to reference a website where the first half of my book can be read by anyone, no charge and no ads?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Only if it is relevant to your post and only if it is there for supporting information rather than as the whole body of the post. Basically, don't advertise your book. This is after all a discussion forum.

[Greylorn]

Seeing this is a scientific forum , maybe we should take god out of the equation, so let me pose the following.

 

What came before the big bang, of course if it happened?

Is our universe just one of an infinite number of universes?

Is what we call "Existence" both eternal and infinite?

Did the universe really have a beginning?

Etc?

 

Alan,

It is only necessary to eliminate God from scientific discussions if you adopt the conventional definition of God, devised by extremely ignorant men who thought that our flat earth was the center of the universe. They declared the creator of the universe to be omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal. That all-knowing God cannot have creative ideas, i.e. he cannot think, and IMO is intellectually uninteresting.

 

The notion of a creator (lets refer to this as "C") can be introduced into an honest scientific discussion under these conditions:

 

1. C is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

2. C had an origin.

3. After this origin, C had no knowledge and was not initially self-aware.

4. C does not violate the fundamental laws of physics. In particular, C did not create energy from nothing. Energy has indeed always existed, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, in an original state of entropy 1 at a temperature of 0 Kelvin. This is the lowest possible thermodynamic state.

5. C is most likely plural, suggesting that whatever C's contributions to the origin of the universe might have been represent a group effort.

 

This kind of assumption has two important implications. Current theories posit the existence of a single and effectively all-powerful entity (the classic almighty God) or thing (the, ah, "physical singularity" that produced the Big Bang). Both of these origins are functionally identical, in that each implicitly contains all the information needed to construct a universe, Also, both are thought to have created the universe without external cause, a strange hypothesis in a cause-effect universe. Moreover, both origin-theories begin the creation process at entropy 0, the highest possible thermodynamic state.

 

In one important respect, the "C" hypothesis is more scientific than current theory. Whereas the "singlarity" has already blown up and cannot be detected, the C hypothesis depends only upon the potential reality of intelligent entities that are not necessarily asociated with a brain-body system. Parapsychology studies provide an abundance of the necessary evidence that such sentient entities do exist, which is ignored by the conventional science community for lack of a coherent paradigm into which it might fit.

 

It is useful to first acknowledge that at some point in time there existed at least one thing whose origin cannot be explained. This is implied in current religious hypotheses as well as by Big Bang theory. (Multiverse theory is an exercise in frivolous speculation for the documentary channel cameras and the profits they bring, pushing questions about the beginning out of the evidence room.)

 

Distilling these ideas, a scientifically viable explanation for the beginnings can be made from three fundamentally simple and inferentially verifiable hypotheses instead of a single inherently complex and intrinsically unveriviable hypothesis such as an almighty God or a physical singularity.

 

1. A space that contains only unstructured energy that follows the three time-independent laws of thermodynamics and which therefore cannot be created or destroyed.

 

2. A space that contains a substance which naturally interacts with energy, upon contact, so as to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

3. A larger space containing 1.) and 2.) within which they can interact.

 

The only other assumption necessary is that these two spaces actually did interact, leading to the inevitable discovery of consciousness and eventual construction of the universe.

 

The resultant theory is empirically verifiable. Its essential components, dark-energy and the conscious mind are known to exist-- only their forms and properties remain at question.

 

Only if it is relevant to your post and only if it is there for supporting information rather than as the whole body of the post. Basically, don't advertise your book. This is after all a discussion forum.

That is reasonable. Thanks.

 

Again you make an oxymoron by stating that your idea is actually very simple, albeit difficult?

 

Alan,

While I don't take to PeterJ's general assertions, which seem to be a thinly veiled attempt to disconnect the metaphysical from the physical, there are many ideas that are simple, yet difficult to understand without the prerequisites. The Hamiltonian and Fourier transformations come to mind. Likewise Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics.

 

My guess is that if someone can get a handle on what PJ's ideas actually are, they will fall into the simplistic category, in which case they will remain forever impossible for a practical mind to understand. Some mystics translate impossible as == difficult.

[Moontanman]

Alan,

It is only necessary to eliminate God from scientific discussions if you adopt the conventional definition of God, devised by extremely ignorant men who thought that our flat earth was the center of the universe. They declared the creator of the universe to be omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal. That all-knowing God cannot have creative ideas, i.e. he cannot think, and IMO is intellectually uninteresting.

 

Ok, unique take on god but since i don't see any reason why there has to be one I can go with that.

 

The notion of a creator (lets refer to this as "C") can be introduced into an honest scientific discussion under these conditions:

 

1. C is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

2. C had an origin.

3. After this origin, C had no knowledge and was not initially self-aware.

4. C does not violate the fundamental laws of physics. In particular, C did not create energy from nothing. Energy has indeed always existed, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, in an original state of entropy 1 at a temperature of 0 Kelvin. This is the lowest possible thermodynamic state.

5. C is most likely plural, suggesting that whatever C's contributions to the origin of the universe might have been represent a group effort.

 

I see no way you can support such a wild claim...

 

 

This kind of assumption has two important implications. Current theories posit the existence of a single and effectively all-powerful entity (the classic almighty God) or thing (the, ah, "physical singularity" that produced the Big Bang). Both of these origins are functionally identical, in that each implicitly contains all the information needed to construct a universe, Also, both are thought to have created the universe without external cause, a strange hypothesis in a cause-effect universe. Moreover, both origin-theories begin the creation process at entropy 0, the highest possible thermodynamic state.

 

There are other theories and your depiction of the big bang is more than a bit of a strawman don't you think?

 

In one important respect, the "C" hypothesis is more scientific than current theory. Whereas the "singlarity" has already blown up and cannot be detected, the C hypothesis depends only upon the potential reality of intelligent entities that are not necessarily asociated with a brain-body system. Parapsychology studies provide an abundance of the necessary evidence that such sentient entities do exist, which is ignored by the conventional science community for lack of a coherent paradigm into which it might fit.

 

Citation needed, this is not mainstream science and as such needs to be supported by something other than your claims.

 

It is useful to first acknowledge that at some point in time there existed at least one thing whose origin cannot be explained. This is implied in current religious hypotheses as well as by Big Bang theory. (Multiverse theory is an exercise in frivolous speculation for the documentary channel cameras and the profits they bring, pushing questions about the beginning out of the evidence room.)

 

Again these are not the only hypothesis and the origins theory suggests no such thing...

 

Distilling these ideas, a scientifically viable explanation for the beginnings can be made from three fundamentally simple and inferentially verifiable hypotheses instead of a single inherently complex and intrinsically unveriviable hypothesis such as an almighty God or a physical singularity.

 

1. A space that contains only unstructured energy that follows the three time-independent laws of thermodynamics and which therefore cannot be created or destroyed.

 

2. A space that contains a substance which naturally interacts with energy, upon contact, so as to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

3. A larger space containing 1.) and 2.) within which they can interact.

 

The only other assumption necessary is that these two spaces actually did interact, leading to the inevitable discovery of consciousness and eventual construction of the universe.

 

The resultant theory is empirically verifiable. Its essential components, dark-energy and the conscious mind are known to exist-- only their forms and properties remain at question.

 

That is reasonable. Thanks.

 

Empirically verifiable? Really? A conscious mind independent of time, space, and matter somehow connected with dark energy... I offered to review your book and point out it's logical fallacies separately and in detail, should have taken my offer dude...

[Greylorn]

There isn't a scientific answer. This is metaphysics. We can't expect physics to answer a question that is metaphysical, the two disciplines are designed to be mutually exclusive. If we do not see this then we are going to go round and round in circles until the forum runs out of storage space. This is not rocket science.

 

If the idea is that physics can answer this question then the thread should be moved to physics and out of philosophy.

 

PeterJ

 

Metaphysics was not "designed" at all, and was certaintly not designed to be separate from physics. The study of metaphysics began with a collection of Aristotle's speculations about what might have preceded physics. Since he got his physics wrong, his antecedent speculations cannot be trusted either.

 

Any separation between physics and metaphysics was artificially induced by followers of Aristotle who put them into different categories or sections of the compendiums they published. The orignal writings were intermixed, not separated at all, making any apparent separaction the arbitrary acts of librarians. They even got the name wrong. Metaphysics got its name because the follower-nits placed the material after the physics section (meta is Greek for "after"). Since Aristotle's ideas were about what preceded physics, students who actually understood them might have named the section "antephysics."

 

I do not believe that the antephysical concepts to which we mistakenly refer to as metaphysics can be separated from physics. How can they be? Big Bang theory is clearly an antephysical speculation, as is multiverse theory. Likewise, conventional theologies, even Buddhism.

 

If fundamental aspects of the universe can be logically subdivided at all, the division would fall into two categories: mind-involved, and mind-independent. Yet, if some kind of intelligences are involved in the construction of the universe and its secondary components, even this distinction will blur on occasion.

[Alan McDougall]

 

Alan,

It is only necessary to eliminate God from scientific discussions if you adopt the conventional definition of God, devised by extremely ignorant men who thought that our flat earth was the center of the universe. They declared the creator of the universe to be omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal. That all-knowing God cannot have creative ideas, i.e. he cannot think, and IMO is intellectually uninteresting.

 

The notion of a creator (lets refer to this as "C") can be introduced into an honest scientific discussion under these conditions:

 

1. C is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

2. C had an origin.

3. After this origin, C had no knowledge and was not initially self-aware.

4. C does not violate the fundamental laws of physics. In particular, C did not create energy from nothing. Energy has indeed always existed, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, in an original state of entropy 1 at a temperature of 0 Kelvin. This is the lowest possible thermodynamic state.

5. C is most likely plural, suggesting that whatever C's contributions to the origin of the universe might have been represent a group effort.

 

This kind of assumption has two important implications. Current theories posit the existence of a single and effectively all-powerful entity (the classic almighty God) or thing (the, ah, "physical singularity" that produced the Big Bang). Both of these origins are functionally identical, in that each implicitly contains all the information needed to construct a universe, Also, both are thought to have created the universe without external cause, a strange hypothesis in a cause-effect universe. Moreover, both origin-theories begin the creation process at entropy 0, the highest possible thermodynamic state.

 

In one important respect, the "C" hypothesis is more scientific than current theory. Whereas the "singlarity" has already blown up and cannot be detected, the C hypothesis depends only upon the potential reality of intelligent entities that are not necessarily asociated with a brain-body system. Parapsychology studies provide an abundance of the necessary evidence that such sentient entities do exist, which is ignored by the conventional science community for lack of a coherent paradigm into which it might fit.

 

It is useful to first acknowledge that at some point in time there existed at least one thing whose origin cannot be explained. This is implied in current religious hypotheses as well as by Big Bang theory. (Multiverse theory is an exercise in frivolous speculation for the documentary channel cameras and the profits they bring, pushing questions about the beginning out of the evidence room.)

 

Distilling these ideas, a scientifically viable explanation for the beginnings can be made from three fundamentally simple and inferentially verifiable hypotheses instead of a single inherently complex and intrinsically unveriviable hypothesis such as an almighty God or a physical singularity.

 

1. A space that contains only unstructured energy that follows the three time-independent laws of thermodynamics and which therefore cannot be created or destroyed.

 

2. A space that contains a substance which naturally interacts with energy, upon contact, so as to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

3. A larger space containing 1.) and 2.) within which they can interact.

 

The only other assumption necessary is that these two spaces actually did interact, leading to the inevitable discovery of consciousness and eventual construction of the universe.

 

The resultant theory is empirically verifiable. Its essential components, dark-energy and the conscious mind are known to exist-- only their forms and properties remain at question.

ally are, they will fall into the simplistic category, in which case they will remain forever impossible for a practical mind to understand. Some mystics translate impossible as == difficult.

 

With respect your post does not address the subject at hand,'How did everything begin?" Your god could just be an advanced alien of some sort thus your "C" is only a sentient being , baffled as to why is exists!

Edited June 21, 2013 by Alan McDougall

[Greylorn]

 

With respect your post does not address the subject at hand,'How did everything begin?" Your god could just be an advanced alien of some sort thus your "C" is only a sentient being , baffled as to why is exists!

 

Alan,

 

I promise you that C is not an alien, although those who have bothered to learn more have agreed that my particular concept is unique. It has nothing in common with typical belief systems. That makes it an alien concept for conventional religionists, but that does not seem to be your meaning.

 

I'm guessing that at some point in "C's" development they considered the same questions that some humans do, including that of their own origin. I like to think that they came up with the same answers that I found.

 

You wrote, "only a sentient being," as if that was somehow unimportant. You seem to be taking sentience for granted. IMO that is a short-sighted view, perhaps one that is fostered by a simplistic belief system. Have you adopted the classical God-concept and its accompanying assumptions that this God created sentient beings? What is your answer to the OP?

 

Kindly accept my apologies for a specification set that was difficult to make sense of without additional background. It actually does address 'how everything began,' but you obviously did not make enough sense of my terse presentation to decode that. I'm experimenting with different ways to present unorthodox concepts. This particular experiment fails. Sorry about that.

[Greylorn]

Ok, unique take on god but since i don't see any reason why there has to be one I can go with that.

From history I wonder if you meant to write "can't" rather than can. Freudian slip? (No need to reply, because I don't care.)

 

I developed the "C" theory from the subset of facts available 50 years ago. These included the apparent validity of physics, plus some personal psychic experiences. Since then I've learned of other reasons why a comprehensive creation theory is required to explain all the available information about various aspects of the universe, especially human consciousness. Lacking any personal paranormal experiences, you would have to learn from science. I suggest that you make a long foray into microbiology, for this is where creation becomes most apparent. Behe's two books on the subject would provide an introduction. Of course you will reject Behe's conclusions, but that is not the point. He provides a wonderful introduction to microbiology. If you manage to comprehend that material, you might move on to simpler and even more interesting issues that Behe does not address.

 

One is the C-value enigma. the other is the mystery of how symbolic information came to be used within biological cells. Paul Martin is polishing his essay on that subject, and when ready I will try to introduce it here. These two issues are not explained by any current neo-Darwinist models, but are exactly what one would expect if my creation theory is remotely close.

I see no way you can support such a wild claim...

Of course you cannot. Its support requires some knowledge that you may not have, and a perspective that you will never have.

There are other theories and your depiction of the big bang is more than a bit of a strawman don't you think?

No, I do not. However I acknowledge that my brief comments about it would allow you to make that claim, given your mindset. Of course I discuss the issue in greater depth elsewhere.

Citation needed, this is not mainstream science and as such needs to be supported by something other than your claims.

Where to begin? One could fill a decent library with books written about paranormal phenomena. Moreover, note that the AAAS does recognize one parapsychological research organization as an affiliate (or some title like that) on the grounds that their research methods follow scientific standards. You might start with Dean Radin's book, "The Conscious Universe."

Again these are not the only hypothesis and the origins theory suggests no such thing...

If you say so, there's no point in my arguing with you.

Empirically verifiable? Really? A conscious mind independent of time, space, and matter somehow connected with dark energy... I offered to review your book and point out it's logical fallacies separately and in detail, should have taken my offer dude...

Yep! Empirically verifiable is what I wrote, and I stand by that claim. Having zero understanding of any of my concepts, of course you can scoff and mock in your usual style, which in this particular case involves attributing concepts to me that I did not present. In other words, lying about what I wrote.

 

I specifically included "space" in my definitions. Yet you declare my creator concept to be independent of space, an obvious and I assume, given my history with you, a deliberate lie.

 

That false representation of my ideas on your part is typical of my prior experiences with you. I have no interest in exchanging ideas with someone who persistently misrepresents mine, and who puts his words onto my page. Therefore, this will be my last communication with you.

 

I don't recall your offer to review my book. Hypography? I was recovering from surgery back then and taking pain killers, so perhaps missed your offer. Nonetheless I would have (or did) decline it. My encounters with you there were not pleasant, as this encounter reminds me. Moreover I do not feel that you are qualified to provide an honest, constructive review of any book more complex than a "Dick and Jane" reader. I can easily predict that you will not understand it, whatever "it" happends to be.

 

Moreover, your comments with respect to ideas with which you disagree amount to simple, non-constructive complaints. These are useless to a writer. You never support your complaints with detailed explanations, but expect others to do that when addressing your objections. Conversations with you are a waste of time, in the sense that you cannot possibly learn anything of value from me, and I cannot expect an objective dialoge from you. Your mindset is what I would call "vehemently atheistic."

 

So, thank you for your offer, but reading my book would only piss you off, and we have enough anger on the planet already. Good bye, forever.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

What happened in another forum is not relevant here. Drop that discussion.

 

Moreover I do not feel that you are qualified to provide an honest, constructive review of any book more complex than a "Dick and Jane" reader. I can easily predict that you will not understand it, whatever "it" happends to be.

 

!

Moderator Note

And this is not going to fly. Drop this as well, or we will be saying goodbye, forever.

[Alan McDougall]

There are only three fundamental realities in the universe, force, consciousness, and matter/energy. That is all that we can see around us of which everything is made in the universe and includes our own bodies.

 

To separate consciousness and matter raises more questions than answers and would deepen the mystery of this phenomenon. Science has already established the fact, that there are no such things as "solid objects."

 

Quantum Physicists have found in their research, that particles behave as though they are intelligent because they seem to know how to communicate with each other over great distances maybe instantaniously but certantly at excess of the speed of light. Each particle somehow knows their place in the order of things. Atoms are known to not only behave as particles but as wave forms of energy as well. When they behave as a wave form, they defy known physical laws and known methods of measurements which are attributes of the Space/Time Continuum.

 

The wave forms of atoms are not material by nature, but might be a manifestation of a great Consciousness, a non-local field of intelligence, that science knows very little about at the moment. Even when an atom manifests as a particle, it is still not as "material" as we think it is because sometimes it is at two places at the same time. It becomes impossible to measure, or make any sense out of known physical laws.

 

In its creative aspect, the mind, or god or, I think might generate enormous waves of vibratory energy through the effort of its will and manifests the sub-atomic and atomic particles of which all manifested matter in the universe is made. All manifested matter is subject to its will and efforts and behave according to firmly established known, and unknown laws of physics which are yet to be uncovered by science. There is nothing that can escape its mind, because all manifested matter solely exists within the infinite mind of the all. No human qualities can be ascribed to it.

 

There is nothing that can be added or subtracted from its Infinity, because it has no boundaries or edges in space to add or subtract from. It does not learn anything because it knows everything. It is no respecter of beliefs, skin color, social standing, religion, government, country, and does not favor anybody or anything. it is unconditional in the manifestation of life and the love it has for its creation. Man has the responsibility to understand the final result of his or her choices which follow firmly established unconditional universal rules which behave as a door that swings in both directions.

 

Death and the grave can only apply to the physical body which is subject to the law of entropy. There is an aspect of us that is non material, is not subject to entropy and gives life to the body. Entropy belongs to the realm of the Space/Time Continuum and can be overruled by the higher Mental LAW. When this unconditional Mental Law is knowingly utilized, it will cause a paradigm shift in the body and bring vibrant Life and health.

 

No matter what we do or where we go, "the all" is an inescapable reality in the universe and holds all the secrets to life, matter, and phenomena within its mind.

 

What mind is and where it is situated has been debated for centuries. Rarely two philosophers agree on one definition or location for mind.

 

Rene Descartes, French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician said that there is a total and absolute distinction between mental and material substance and that mind is situated in the pineal gland, of course this has been proved false..

 

Endocrinologist Ernest Gelhorn thinks that mind is an activity of the entire nervous system. Hughlings Jackson, a neurologist, thinks that consciousness and mind are the same, whereas Percival Bailey, director of the Psychiatric Research Institute, disagrees.

 

Mind is nonmaterial and cannot become part of a material brain, pineal gland or amygdala. We can go through every nerve cell, analyze electrochemically, spectroscopically, mass-photographically, electronically, and, using all known tests, we will not find any indication of mind. There is no single location for the mind. The human mind is distributed throughout the human body and its environment. Every cell has its own mind and has the ability to function independently or jointly with all the cells of the body.

 

Neuron are capable of deciding whether to transmit information to another nerve cell and, if it will, to which one among the thousands of cells with which it is in contact. Similarly, endocrine cells decide whether they will respond to a demand for a particular enzyme by cells in another far corner of the body.

 

Sponge cells exhibit a similar capacity of awareness. When a piece of sponge is ground up and individual cells are suspended in solution, they will come together and become a complete sponge within a few hours. This indicates that each cell has a mind of its own to decide to combine with another sponge cell and with which of the thousands of cells floating in solution.

 

Just as each of the thousand pieces of a splintered mirror will show the same reflection of an object as the whole mirror, each cell reflects our mind and each cell in the universe reflects the universal mind.

 

In my opinion, there might exist a sourt of supermind, that oversees, harmonises and sustains our beautiful universe.

[Moontanman]

From history I wonder if you meant to write "can't" rather than can. Freudian slip? (No need to reply, because I don't care.)

 

I developed the "C" theory from the subset of facts available 50 years ago. These included the apparent validity of physics, plus some personal psychic experiences. Since then I've learned of other reasons why a comprehensive creation theory is required to explain all the available information about various aspects of the universe, especially human consciousness. Lacking any personal paranormal experiences, you would have to learn from science. I suggest that you make a long foray into microbiology, for this is where creation becomes most apparent. Behe's two books on the subject would provide an introduction. Of course you will reject Behe's conclusions, but that is not the point. He provides a wonderful introduction to microbiology. If you manage to comprehend that material, you might move on to simpler and even more interesting issues that Behe does not address.

 

One is the C-value enigma. the other is the mystery of how symbolic information came to be used within biological cells. Paul Martin is polishing his essay on that subject, and when ready I will try to introduce it here. These two issues are not explained by any current neo-Darwinist models, but are exactly what one would expect if my creation theory is remotely close.

Of course you cannot. Its support requires some knowledge that you may not have, and a perspective that you will never have.

No, I do not. However I acknowledge that my brief comments about it would allow you to make that claim, given your mindset. Of course I discuss the issue in greater depth elsewhere.

Where to begin? One could fill a decent library with books written about paranormal phenomena. Moreover, note that the AAAS does recognize one parapsychological research organization as an affiliate (or some title like that) on the grounds that their research methods follow scientific standards. You might start with Dean Radin's book, "The Conscious Universe."

If you say so, there's no point in my arguing with you.

Yep! Empirically verifiable is what I wrote, and I stand by that claim. Having zero understanding of any of my concepts, of course you can scoff and mock in your usual style, which in this particular case involves attributing concepts to me that I did not present. In other words, lying about what I wrote.

 

I specifically included "space" in my definitions. Yet you declare my creator concept to be independent of space, an obvious and I assume, given my history with you, a deliberate lie.

 

That false representation of my ideas on your part is typical of my prior experiences with you. I have no interest in exchanging ideas with someone who persistently misrepresents mine, and who puts his words onto my page. Therefore, this will be my last communication with you.

 

I don't recall your offer to review my book. Hypography? I was recovering from surgery back then and taking pain killers, so perhaps missed your offer. Nonetheless I would have (or did) decline it. My encounters with you there were not pleasant, as this encounter reminds me. Moreover I do not feel that you are qualified to provide an honest, constructive review of any book more complex than a "Dick and Jane" reader. I can easily predict that you will not understand it, whatever "it" happends to be.

 

Moreover, your comments with respect to ideas with which you disagree amount to simple, non-constructive complaints. These are useless to a writer. You never support your complaints with detailed explanations, but expect others to do that when addressing your objections. Conversations with you are a waste of time, in the sense that you cannot possibly learn anything of value from me, and I cannot expect an objective dialoge from you. Your mindset is what I would call "vehemently atheistic."

 

So, thank you for your offer, but reading my book would only piss you off, and we have enough anger on the planet already. Good bye, forever.

 

 

No I meant "can" not 'can't" and if you could support your ideas with Empirically verifiable evidence my guess is that you already would have....

There are only three fundamental realities in the universe, force, consciousness, and matter/energy. That is all that we can see around us of which everything is made in the universe and includes our own bodies.

I would like to see some support for anything other than matter and energy...

 

To separate consciousness and matter raises more questions than answers and would deepen the mystery of this phenomenon. Science has already established the fact, that there are no such things as "solid objects."

I'm honestly not sure what you are asserting here.

 

Quantum Physicists have found in their research, that particles behave as though they are intelligent because they seem to know how to communicate with each other over great distances maybe instantaniously but certantly at excess of the speed of light. Each particle somehow knows their place in the order of things. Atoms are known to not only behave as particles but as wave forms of energy as well. When they behave as a wave form, they defy known physical laws and known methods of measurements which are attributes of the Space/Time Continuum.

Can you support this assertion?

 

The wave forms of atoms are not material by nature, but might be a manifestation of a great Consciousness, a non-local field of intelligence, that science knows very little about at the moment. Even when an atom manifests as a particle, it is still not as "material" as we think it is because sometimes it is at two places at the same time. It becomes impossible to measure, or make any sense out of known physical laws.

Can you show some support for that idea?

 

In its creative aspect, the mind, or god or, I think might generate enormous waves of vibratory energy through the effort of its will and manifests the sub-atomic and atomic particles of which all manifested matter in the universe is made. All manifested matter is subject to its will and efforts and behave according to firmly established known, and unknown laws of physics which are yet to be uncovered by science. There is nothing that can escape its mind, because all manifested matter solely exists within the infinite mind of the all. No human qualities can be ascribed to it.

Blind speculation?

 

There is nothing that can be added or subtracted from its Infinity, because it has no boundaries or edges in space to add or subtract from. It does not learn anything because it knows everything. It is no respecter of beliefs, skin color, social standing, religion, government, country, and does not favor anybody or anything. it is unconditional in the manifestation of life and the love it has for its creation. Man has the responsibility to understand the final result of his or her choices which follow firmly established unconditional universal rules which behave as a door that swings in both directions.

Again, is there is evidence of these assertions?

 

Death and the grave can only apply to the physical body which is subject to the law of entropy. There is an aspect of us that is non material, is not subject to entropy and gives life to the body. Entropy belongs to the realm of the Space/Time Continuum and can be overruled by the higher Mental LAW. When this unconditional Mental Law is knowingly utilized, it will cause a paradigm shift in the body and bring vibrant Life and health.

What part of us is non material?

 

No matter what we do or where we go, "the all" is an inescapable reality in the universe and holds all the secrets to life, matter, and phenomena within its mind.

The universe has a mind?

 

What mind is and where it is situated has been debated for centuries. Rarely two philosophers agree on one definition or location for mind.

and this is relevant to reality in what way?

 

Rene Descartes, French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician said that there is a total and absolute distinction between mental and material substance and that mind is situated in the pineal gland, of course this has been proved false..

Of course...

 

Endocrinologist Ernest Gelhorn thinks that mind is an activity of the entire nervous system. Hughlings Jackson, a neurologist, thinks that consciousness and mind are the same, whereas Percival Bailey, director of the Psychiatric Research Institute, disagrees.

Interesting takes but do any of them have evidence?

 

Mind is nonmaterial and cannot become part of a material brain, pineal gland or amygdala. We can go through every nerve cell, analyze electrochemically, spectroscopically, mass-photographically, electronically, and, using all known tests, we will not find any indication of mind. There is no single location for the mind. The human mind is distributed throughout the human body and its environment. Every cell has its own mind and has the ability to function independently or jointly with all the cells of the body.

The mind is defined by the brain, traumatic brain injury pretty much shows this to be true, injury to the brain can change you into a completely different person..

 

Neuron are capable of deciding whether to transmit information to another nerve cell and, if it will, to which one among the thousands of cells with which it is in contact. Similarly, endocrine cells decide whether they will respond to a demand for a particular enzyme by cells in another far corner of the body.

They "decide" ?

 

Sponge cells exhibit a similar capacity of awareness. When a piece of sponge is ground up and individual cells are suspended in solution, they will come together and become a complete sponge within a few hours. This indicates that each cell has a mind of its own to decide to combine with another sponge cell and with which of the thousands of cells floating in solution.

I see no reason to assume this is evidence that sponges have a mind.

 

Just as each of the thousand pieces of a splintered mirror will show the same reflection of an object as the whole mirror, each cell reflects our mind and each cell in the universe reflects the universal mind.

This makes no sense with out some enormous presuppositions.

 

In my opinion, there might exist a sourt of supermind, that oversees, harmonises and sustains our beautiful universe.

 

Might exist? Lots of things might exist, invisible unicorns might exist....

[Alan McDougall]

Hi, Moontanman,

 

 

I admit my post was just wild speculation, as yours also must also be on this unanswerable question of how everything started?

 

It is something like one trying to know exactly the process of being born (birh process) to the last person (woman) on some bleak world, who died in bringing you into the world.

 

Assuming you are alone , in this hypothetical world ,She is dead and gone and you are alone, so how can you ever know for sure how you actuially came into the world?

[Moontanman]

Hi, Moontanman,

 

 

I admit my post was just wild speculation, as yours also must also be on this unanswerable question of how everything started?

 

It is something like one trying to know exactly the process of being born (birh process) to the last person (woman) on some bleak world, who died in bringing you into the world.

 

Assuming you are alone , in this hypothetical world ,She is dead and gone and you are alone, so how can you ever know for sure how you actuially came into the world?

 

 

Unless you were the only living thing on the planet you could at least observe the processes of life forms around you and deduce that you must have come about through similar processes...

[krash661]

" How did everything really begin? ",

 

inflation theory and vacuum energy seems to be popular

with a hypothesis of from nothing or a tiny seed.

[Alan McDougall]

 

 

Unless you were the only living thing on the planet you could at least observe the processes of life forms around you and deduce that you must have come about through similar processes...

 

I meant you were absolutely alone, no other living things to relate to, not even a mirrow to look at your image.

 

The question in this post is much more difficult and profound that my hypothetical very lonely being, From our point of view, we will, simply, never be able to know or establish be scientific method or otherwise exactly how "Existence, came to Exist"?.

[Moontanman]

 

I meant you were absolutely alone, no other living things to relate to, not even a mirrow to look at your image.

 

The question in this post is much more difficult and profound that my hypothetical very lonely being, From our point of view, we will, simply, never be able to know or establish be scientific method or otherwise exactly how "Existence, came to Exist"?.

 

 

Again I disagree, you are acting as though "because we don't know it now we will never know it" progress is being made, i just read a article about quantum loop gravity that could have real answers to these questions and if not that other ideas are being formulated, the idea that we can never know is not valid...

[Alan McDougall]

 

 

Again I disagree, you are acting as though "because we don't know it now we will never know it" progress is being made, i just read a article about quantum loop gravity that could have real answers to these questions and if not that other ideas are being formulated, the idea that we can never know is not valid...

 

 

 

Again I disagree, you are acting as though "because we don't know it now we will never know it" progress is being made, i just read a article about quantum loop gravity that could have real answers to these questions and if not that other ideas are being formulated, the idea that we can never know is not valid...

Disagree as much as you want to, this question will never be answered; it is totally beyond our human intellect to do this in my opinion. After all we don’t even know what life really is, or have a definition of life. We talk about fundamental particles but in reality, have absolutely no idea or concept of how they came into existence, or how they vanish from existence

[Moontanman]

Disagree as much as you want to, this question will never be answered; it is totally beyond our human intellect to do this in my opinion.

You are welcome to your opinions Alan, I'm glad most such sweeping opinions have been ignored...

 

Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances. -- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.

 

 

After all we don’t even know what life really is, or have a definition of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

Any contiguous living system is called an organism. Organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

We talk about fundamental particles but in reality, have absolutely no idea or concept of how they came into existence, or how they vanish from existence

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1990758,00.html

[krash661]

Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances. -- Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.

there's also this one.

What, sir? You would make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her decks? I have no time to listen to such nonsense.- Napoleon Bonaparte to Robert Fulton, upon hearing of the latter's plans for a steam-powered engine.

alan,

i want to refer you to your own signature,

 

" "YOU MUST KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW" "

[Alan McDougall]

there's also this one.

 

alan,

i want to refer you to your own signature,

 

" "YOU MUST KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW" "

 

" I DO NOT KNOW HOW EVERYTHING BEGAN" and neither do you or anyone else!

 

Your avatar picture lells me all I need know about you!

 

"I DO NOT KNOW HOW EVERYTHING BEGAN"

[krash661]

Your avatar picture lells me all I need know about you!

 

"I DO NOT KNOW HOW EVERYTHING BEGAN"

unfortunately,

 

you have no clue who i am or anything about me,

 

but i am curious,

what does my avatar tell you about me?

 

oh and also,

 

again,

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68265-how-did-everything-really-begin/?p=755738

 

" How did everything really begin? ",

 

inflation theory and vacuum energy seems to be popular

with a hypothesis of from nothing or a tiny seed.

[Trones]

Why does everyone care?

 

I am a Nihilist agnostic.

 

Step 1: Prolong life indefinitely

 

Step 2: Actually explore the universe.

 

Step 3: Figure it out.

 

There you go, problem solved