Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta wrote:Wayne, if you don't mind me asking, where do you get your information? Or is it intuition?

It came to him in a dream but unlike most people, who forget their dreams, he, unfortunately, remembered it.

Lagaysienza;

I am not a Christian. I am an infidel!

-- Updated September 18th, 2015, 10:47 am to add the following --

Alec Smart; it is refered to as lucid or Conscious Dreaming.

Wayne92587 wrote:
Alec Smart; it is refered to as lucid or Conscious Dreaming.

I think what you do if referred to as day dreaming.

I suppose day dreaming is also involved.

What is your understanding of day dreaming??

-- Updated September 18th, 2015, 12:07 pm to add the following --

And my imagination.

Wayne, I know you don't feel it applies to your methods but I'd put your approach under "intuition". Instead of following the evidentiary trail you create a movie in your mind of a particular scenario without the constraints and "one-step-removed" aspect of words. To try to imagine the reality rather than the model. In a sense, it's the difference between studying clouds and looking out into space.

Many discoveries have been made via dreams, be they waking or sleeping. Also, many incorrect assumptions have also stemmed from dreams. That's why I tried to align your ideas with accepted models - because our current scientific models are reliable.

Visionaries without science grounding are less reliable than those with it. An untrained visionary may stumble on to the truth - or away from it. Imaginary (pure) maths does the same as imagined narratives - it can imagine reality before we work out how to observe it. Or it may create seemingly cohesive models that don't have a known equivalent in reality.

Greta wrote; # 312

I have a problem with the "singularity" model, in that it makes no sense; an infinitely dense zone of zero volume with zero entropy and total stability as it sits in a void explodes. Not really much better than "God dunnit". The singularity would not, and could not, have been a stable condition but is clearly a transitional state between other states (in m-theory, the singularity would be the first point of contact between colliding branes).

Wayne wrote;

Greta, the use your technical terms render my Singularity models senseless, meaning that my thoughts on Singularity, in your mind could only have come from my Intuition, Lucid, conscious, day dreaming, or my Imagination, from out of nowhere, the clear blue sky, from somewhere far-out in left Field; my singularity model not really much better than God, dammit.

That is the point; most singularity models describe Singularity as being God, the Big Bang, an expanding universe, which are not really any better than saying that God Created the Universe, God being a Singularity alone in the Emptiness, before he created the Universe, to include, Time, Space and Motion, Space-Time; the only other choice being that "The Universe” is Eternal, Everlasting, had no beginning.

Vijaydevani wrote:

I think the term, universe is misleading here. This form of existence which we call the universe has existed for 13.7 billion years or so and that seems to be more or less established. What I think that means is that, existence changed its state 13.7 billion years ago. As far as we are concerned, there is no "before" because time did not exist. Whatever existed, existed in a state which we would not have the ability to intuit, and that state would probably have no consequential bearing on this state of existence.

Wayne wrote;

I interpret your, "this state of existence" to be the Universe as we know it to be.

Good point, except for the non-existence of Time.

Time has dual Quality; 1st, Time as the whole of a single Reality; the unconditional State of the Existence, Time Eternal, existing as an undifferentiated Singularity, being Existence Itself, the unconditional " state of existence" that existed before the conditional state of existence, the existence of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything;

2nd Time, the conditional state of existence of Time, the differentiated Existence of Time relative to the state and condition, of Space-Time, the Relativity of Time Space and Motion.

Vijaydevani, your understanding of my Singularity, a substance having no mass, as not existing as a material substance, as existing as a unconditional State of Existence, is correct, we would not have the ability to intuit as being an unconditional State of Existence, would probably have no consequential bearing on state of existence is correct.


Wayne wrote; My point is that man has a sense of something, which could be said to be born of Intuition (Lucid, conscious, day dreaming, the Imagination, having appeared right out of the clear blue sky, from nowhere, from some where far-out in left Field); this substance having no mass, not existing as a materiality, not being born of ordinary natural means, cause and effect, is Uncaused, Eternal, Everlasting, omnipresent, omnipotent; there only being two explanations of what it is, it being either intuitive understanding of God or Magic.

My Model of Singularity is not God, Magic, a Big Bang, or the Theory of an Expanding Universe.

Greta, My Singularity neither expands nor does it shrink; My Singularity is both a Microcosm and a Macrocosm, is both Omnipresent and Omnipotent.

Greta by using your own technical terms, and metaphors in attempting to understand the model of my singularity, you have not allowed yourself to understand what my model of Singularity.

I have never presented and exact model of my Singularity, that could be understood, which is my fault.

In the last of #316, I said that I know what I am looking for before I find it, just not in detail.

"What I am looking for" is The Beginning; the before and an after the beginning of the Existence of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything, which some have intuited to be God or a Big Bang, or the existence of an Eternal Universe, Nothingness.

I find that Existence prior to the existence of the Universe to be an unconditional state of existence, While after the Beginning Existence became conditional.

The unconditional state of existence not to be confused with the Conditional State of existence which is born of the unconditional Universe, being born of a substance having no mass, born of omnipresent Substance, an unspoken of Quantity of Individualities, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities; the whole, all, of which acting as the whole of a Single Reality is reprehensive of a Singularity that exists as both Microcosm and a Macrocosm, as an individuality, an Infinitely Finite Indivisible, Singularity; Singularity as the Whole of a Single Reality being spoken of as being all powerful, the Whole of a single Reality, as being Omniscient, the totality of the Energy that exists as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) fully random, quantum state of Singularity.

God not being included in my Model of Singularity; however my model of Singularity is interpreted, by some, as being an intuitive understanding of God.

Sorry Greta but you are way of base, have totally missed the Mark, the point of, my Model of Singularity.

I do not intend to, nor can you align my Singularity with accepted models; there are no current scientific models that are reliable.

I am not an untrained visionary, my Singularity is not an imagined narrative; my Singularity has a known equivalence in Reality.

Anyone putting my model of Singularity as being born of Intuition, to include myself is incorrect.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The popular Big Bang theory which explains much, doesn't explain things like what set off the posited singularity let alone how it could expand to the dimensions of our space and we lack direct evidence for the theoretical dark matter and dark energy.

Decided to check the internet for updates and I've found a link giving three theories (I don't know if I'd buy Barbour's timelessly universe, the first two theories have more meat to them).

So the question is which of the three theories appeal to you? Which do you see have the strongest arguments going for it?

The link: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25 ... vHsYZFOlzQ

Does it have to start to start?

Everything that begins has a starting point.

The universe may never have begun. Trying to make it conform to human experience may be a waste.

Simply because all human experiences begin does not mean that everything needs a beginning.

I must first start off by saying that time is a human construction. This means that the words began, begin, end, ending, etc. are not applicable in this circumstance. Why? because time does not exist, it just is a sound that we humans make to represent something. Second, I am sorry to disagree, but I do not feel that "When did the concept of a universe come about?" is appropriate as a surrogate or substitute for the question you asked. If I were to answer your current thought in human standards, I would need to know your definition of universe. For now there are two answers though and they are (1) If you mean the material planets than the answer would be a couple billion years ago if you don't, and you mean the universe or the "space" which matter is able to inhabit then (2) the answer would be it is impossible to know. Some say that there is nothing in the future that is impossible only improbable, but I tell you now that the real answer to your question is impossible to discover.

Time does not have a beginning, since no matter how far back in time one goes, you may always go back one year further. The universe doesn't have a beginning either, although it did make a remarkable change about 13.7 billion years ago. All that there ever was and all that there ever will be, is right here and right now. All that ever happens is that things are constantly changing forms, since nothing has a permanent unchanging self. Even the Sun will die in roughly another 8 billion years, turning the Earth and everything on it, into a charred lifeless rock.

Present awareness; #325 wrote

Time does not have a beginning, since no matter how far back in time one goes, you may always go back one year further. The universe doesn't have a beginning either, although it did make a remarkable change about 13.7 billion years ago. All that there ever was and all that there ever will be, is right here and right now. All that ever happens is that things are constantly changing forms.

Wayne wrote; True, except for the Universe not having a beginning. Change, displacement, the differentiation of Time, Space and Motion signifying, being indicative of the Beginning. The Form of existence prior to the Beginning was such that the Reality of Everything existed as a substance that had no Mass that existed in the form of Pure unadulterated Energy, Pure Passion. A Singularity of having no relative, value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, by its allusive nature as a Random Singularity, the God Particle, being converted, morphing into the a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1.

Mechsmith #324 wrote; The universe may never have begun. Trying to make it conform to human experience may be a waste.

Simply because all human experiences begin does not mean that everything needs a beginning. [/ quote]


Wayne wrote;

All series of events, processes, continuums have a beginning, to include the System of Chaos that made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

The Universe, as in the Butterfly Effect was born of a System of Chaos; Chaos being born of Randomness; Randomness being a State or Condition in which the First Singularity that is presented begins the existence of a Singularity having relative a numerical value of One-1, which by nature exists in part as part of a greater whole, existing as the First in a series, as the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, as the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time.

The Nature of a Singularity having a dual quality, 0/1; by it very Nature being Transcendent, being able to transcend the Great Void that exists in between Nothing and Something, which took place in the Twinkling of an eye.

The First Random Singularity to become Relative, given the numerical value of One-1 as in the Reality of First Cause, being the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, is indicative of the First in a series, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time.

The displacement of a Random Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0 having been displaced, being instantaneously reborn, transfigured, converted, morphing into the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1; First Motion being indicative of a Singularity of One-1 having been displaced, being in Motion, having angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction.

The First Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1 being the first in a series, being an Affect, began the Law of Cause and Effect, became First Cause, which as in the Butterfly Effect, being the Cause of the System of Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

In the Beginning, Time, Space and Motion being undifferentiated, there was only Darkness upon the Deep, the Reality of Everything exiting as a Big Black Whole.



Keeper of the Holy Grail,

The Lord of King Solomon’s Ring-->0, the Transcendental Singularity, the God Particle.

The Creator of "The Theory of Everything" : 0/1--->

Earth shall be completely atomised by the Sun when the latter goes red giant in five billion years time. And when this happens there will be precisely zero evidence that it ever existed. For we shall leave behind absolutely no trace of us whatsoever. And this is to all practical purposes no different to our species and this planet having never existed at all

Mechsmith wrote:The universe may never have begun. Trying to make it conform to human experience may be a waste.

Simply because all human experiences begin does not mean that everything needs a beginning.

Exactly. I agree with this completely. We know that our cognition of time is completely subjective, therefore we have two options when considering any beginning to the Universe.

1) We can try to frame the question within our subjective cognition of time, and say that the question of how the Universe began is apparently beyond human comprehension. It's inexplicable how it began, for Something cannot come from Nothing.

2) We can question the veracity of even asking the question in the first place, as Mechsmith just did above. That is, we can take the fact that our idea of time is subjective in the first place, and consider the idea of any "beginning" outside of our subjective cognition of time.

Option #2 leaves us saying something like, "The question cannot be answered because the Universe had no beginning. It always existed and perhaps always will. Our idea of beginnings and endings is a completely subjective one, and does not reflect any real objective property of the world at large". Not completely satisfying, but it acknowledges our limitations and answers the question as much as it can be answered.

Option #1 leaves us spinning round and round in circles, searching for some elusive explanation of how Something --- Anything --- could have possibly came from Nothing. For how could the Universe have begun when, prior to its existence, there was absolutely nothing preceding it --- no time at all, no possible causation? Insisting on a "beginning" leaves us with a task of explaining no less difficult than that of explaining magic --- explaining how existence can arise from absolute non-existence.

I appeal to my fellow philosophers here that Option #2 is the correct one, not only because it is the most humble one, but also because it frees the mind from wasting its resources trying to explain the inexplicable. We must know what we can know, and what we cannot know. And whether or not the Universe ever began, or how it could have began if it did, or how it could have always existed --- these are the kinds of questions we must acknowledge are beyond our capacity to grasp....

Well said, Atreyu!