Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

[quote=vector369 post_id=9202 time=1678533947 user_id=1000000084]
It is suggested that there are several realms of existence becoming more dense until the physical realm we find ourselves. So, both the above maybe right. As we are now existing on the physical plane, we are nearing the end of this current Cosmic out breath.
[/quote]

So I don't believe in the "higher dimensions" stuff that has been in vogue for decades. But I do have a couple thoughts on "realms of existence".

1. energy / electromagnetic spectrum. consider that our eyes only detect a small slice of the em spectrum. So we cannot directly observe microwaves, vlfs, xrays, gamma rays, etc, etc. We can build meters and detectors, but they are usually very primitive things with needles or digital readouts, different from the complex images our brains form from visible spectrum inputs. An exception to this would be night-vision goggles which allow us to literally see infra-red wavelengths. One could argue that night-vision goggles let us enter a sort of alternate existence. For a while I've been thinking it would be cool to create similar goggles to view microwaves and other wavelengths. So for example, one could visibly see in realtime the energy streaming out from a wifi-router, cell-phone, microwave oven, 5g tower, bluetooth device, and so on. Even the human body, which has an associated energy field. I think people would think about and treat transmitting devices differently if we could literally see the emanations as glowing hot bulbs/flames/streams. And we might treat eachother differently also if we could visibly see our energy fields (aura? soul?) changing with our emotions, mood.

edit: somebody made a very crude version to visualize microwaves in free space, not realtime: https://hackaday.com/2015/09/08/see-actual-microwaves-no-more-faking-it/
edit2: this seems more viable/practical: https://www.wired.com/2013/01/new-metamaterial-camera/

2. scale. My particular lense/understanding of the cosmos is that of an infinite fractal. So our entire galaxy may be the equivalent of an atom at a higher, larger scale (realm) of reality. and likewise, every one of our atoms may be a galaxy at a lower/smaller scale. and so on, up and down, forever. So in this sense then, we would have an infinity of "realms" within and around us. We are literally composed of them. But we could never enter a realm at a smaller or larger scale. So then, they co-exist in the same space in a way, but it is senseless to think about moving between realms.

Perhaps the Socratic method can guide us...

1. Can something (matter) come from nothing?

2. Is there a smallest unit beyond which matter cannot be further sub-divided?

3. Is there likely to be a boundary around matter beyond which nothing exists?

4. Can matter turn into nothing?

5. Is matter observed to be homogenous as it gets smaller or as it gets larger?

6. If the answer to all of the above is 'no' then what kind of cosmos can fit these parameters?


and a bonus q: What would the "sky" look like if one were somehow standing on an electron inside a water molecule inside the ocean? Or a gas molecule in the sky? Or an iron molecule in a hammer? How big would the "observable universe" be for the electron observer vs the "observable universe" that we can see?

The Theosophical Society have since started, and are part way through, a youtube series called Cosmogenisis (how the Cosmos came into creation). I think it may answer some of the questions raised here.

Pablo Sender quotes the same quote I quoted in the first post- zero contains all numbers. Nothing then, not being generally what we percieve as nothingness, which is relative. Maybe Absolute Nothingness is not the best term to describe this absolute- unless, maybe, you can separate it from the relative nothing we use to describe, say, an empty cup.

I was, at some point, going to return to this thread and share The Stanzas from The Secret Doctrine - Mme Blavatsky. As the series shares them, the summaries and more, I'll post that. Pablo talks of the difficulties of even discussing what cannot be conceptualised. It can only be approached negatively. One cannot asert what IT is but what IT is not. Symbolical language also speaks to inner senses rather than the intellectual mind.

Cosmogenisis - The Secret Doctrine
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLI7veeGm8ljMK7J6hZEsFFUV9aEsI4lRZ
The Secret Doctrine I & II might be worth your time if this series interests. I'm finding it to be a gripping watch!

Perhaps, I should look more into the Aboriginal story of creation. One question that remains for me, amongst many: how many of these Cosmic out breaths, which bring the Universe into manifestation, have their been? The Native Australian Myth seems to be suggesting that "for aeons The Spirit of All Life dwelled in the nothing". This could be alluding to the sleep period or is suggesting that manifestation never occurred. The Secret Docrine suggests that this is the way it has always been and that manifestation is almost a necessity after rest. The Aboriginal Myth also suggests that, at first, there was only Air/Fire/Water. Interesting as this may not require planets which bring the elements of Earth/Wood.

It is suggested that there are several realms of existence becoming more dense until the physical realm we find ourselves. So, both the above maybe right. As we are now existing on the physical plane, we are nearing the end of this current Cosmic out breath.

(My take) Having wondered about space and the Big Bang- Cosmogenesis does not support the Big Bang as everything starting from one point in space/time. Sometimes wonder if the idea of the Big Bang was taken from these philosophical concepts of everything coming from "nothing" but that it was misconstrued and bent to fit. Space is like the nothing in that it doesn't move per se (from vid) but things do move through it. In sleep the Absolute contains the potential of abstract space which, in opposition to nothingness, should therefore be infinte. Both nothingness and infinity being beyond human conception, intellectually speaking. It seems to be suggesting that space is always there and infinite but "asleep" and that when it wakes, all of space awakens (with plasma?).

Tricky to put any of this into words ..

not word games. logic. which hopefully can then lead to a better understanding of nature/reality/existence.

So what exactly is the point of this discussion, since you seem to be saying that nothing can't exist. Just word games?

[quote]Now you obviously don’t think God can be omnipotent because you think he could not create the universe out of nothing. But me? I’m an agnostic … meaning that maybe he could? ;)[/quote]

If God exists, then already there is something, not nothing. as I use/understand the word nothing.

The title of this thread is "What is absolute nothingness"? I already gave an answer, but here I will make it more succinct:

absolute nothingness is a hypothetical state in which no "thing" exists or ever can exist nada, zip, zilch. It is not "empty space" [1], because space implies a distance between two "things". Instead, it is the complete absence of any existence.

I know for a fact it is hypothetical because I think and therefore I am, as Descarte cleverly stated. I do not know for a fact that anything exists beyond my mind, whatever that is, but the very fact of "I am" means that something, (me) exists, and not absolute nothingness.

[1] empty space is not empty imo, only relatively less dense/energetic than baryonic matter, but still a medium that can transmit waves super efficiently and quickly, implying a high density.

[quote=danda post_id=9139 time=1678152021 user_id=1000000062]
If that is not clear enough for you, I can't help you.
[/quote]

It's a two way street. If what I noted isn't clear enough for you, I can't help you ... and in my opinion you're just playing word games.

this is not hard to understand.

Draw a teeny tiny circle in the center of a page. shade in the rest of the page.

label the small circle: microcosm, observable universe. label the rest of the page: macrocosm, entire universe.

Now imagine that the page extends outward... forever.

God, if such exists, would exist somewhere on the page, outside the tiny circle labeled microcosm.

If that is not clear enough for you, I can't help you.

[quote=danda post_id=9126 time=1678095382 user_id=1000000062]
Nowhere have I denied that a God could exist. Nor do I have any positive evidence. So I remain agnostic/undecided.
[/quote]

Fine. We've cleared that up at least. :D

[quote=danda post_id=9126 time=1678095382 user_id=1000000062]
If the universe is everything that exists, and god exists, then god is part of the universe, by definition.
[/quote]

But you said "Let us say that "God" created us [b]and everything we can observe.[/b]" In that case, God created the universe as most people understand it. And logic says that God couldn't create something he was a part of, could he?

[quote=danda post_id=9126 time=1678095382 user_id=1000000062]I acknowledge that an intelligent Creator could have created "our reality". Such creator still exists in "the universe" -- that being a macrocosm that extends far beyond our microcosm.[/quote]

Initially you said that “Existence, reality, the Universe could be said to be a disruption of this innate natural order.” That statement implies our universe and reality are the same thing. But now you’re using the word "reality" in a way that is not consistent with what most people define as the universe. Now you're talking about multiverses which leads to the question ... "Did God create them?" You see where this is going? If you allow that God could create universes, then sooner or later he has be outside them to start the chain.

[quote=danda post_id=9126 time=1678095382 user_id=1000000062]Also, "our reality" would need to have been constructed (created) using materials/tech available to the creator in their extended universe. not magic. (else we are entirely outside the realm of logic and science.)[/quote]

Of course the concept of God is outside the realm of OUR logic and OUR science. But that doesn't mean that the whole of logic and science preclude it. Now you obviously don’t think God can be omnipotent because you think he could not create the universe out of nothing. But me? I’m an agnostic … meaning that maybe he could? ;)

The whole point of God is that he is uncreated and can create anything he wants out of nothing. That's what makes Him God. That's why he can't use pre-existing material - that's a god, not [i]the[/i] God. God does what ever magic he chooses, he invented logic and science, he's not subject to rules you decided govern it. If you can conprehend it and make it a part of a larger whole, it's not God. He is beyond being and reality as we can ever understand it and exists (beyong existence,) in His essence, completely apart and outside of what He creates. The ultimate variable to upset every model and equation.

[quote=BeAChooser post_id=9123 time=1678064019 user_id=29858]
I do to, but that can't include God if he exists and created the universe.

So you are denying the possibility that a God exists.

Why didn't you just say so in the first place rather than saying "Let us say that 'God' created us."
[/quote]

Nowhere have I denied that a God could exist. Nor do I have any positive evidence. So I remain agnostic/undecided.

If the universe is everything that exists, and god exists, then god is part of the universe, by definition.

I think the point you may be missing is that I am acknowledging that our perceived reality, our entire cosmos that we can observe, is what most people call "the universe". But I would only call it "our reality" or "observable universe" or "microcosm". Others might use the term "universe" for "our reality" and "metaverse" or "macrocosm" for "all that exists".

Ok then, using my terminology, I acknowledge that an intelligent Creator could have created "our reality". Such creator still exists in "the universe" -- that being a macrocosm that extends far beyond our microcosm.

Also, "our reality" would need to have been constructed (created) using materials/tech available to the creator in their extended universe. not magic. (else we are entirely outside the realm of logic and science.)

Take for example a game of "Sim City" running in a computer. For sims (artificial characters) in the simulation, "God" could be the kid playing the game, or could be the programmer that made the game. But more importantly, the game exists in the computer's ram and CPU, which itself exists in our world, which is part of our universe. Thus, the simulated city and the individual "sim" is also a part of our universe, although the sim cannot observe anything outside the simulation.

Can we agree on that clarification/possibility?

[quote=danda post_id=9121 time=1678061777 user_id=1000000062]
I define "the universe" as "everything that exists". everything,
[/quote]

I do to, but that can't include God if he exists and created the universe.

So you are denying the possibility that a God exists.

Why didn't you just say so in the first place rather than saying "Let us say that 'God' created us."

[quote=BeAChooser post_id=9116 time=1678051827 user_id=29858]
God would have to be outside the universe we know
[/quote]

I define "the universe" as "everything that exists". everything,

What we can observe of it, or "know", is probably just the tiniest portion of **infinity**. It's like imagine we are the size of an electron, inside a water molecule inside the ocean. And yet we think that our surrounding 1 billion atoms are "the entire universe". It's silly.

The logic I've stated is 100% compatible with our observable reality being a microcosm in a larger cosmos, such as "God's realm", a computer simulation, or whatever. I simply don't think those are the most likely explanations, again because of Occam's razor. I also don't think "big bang", or a series of big bangs is likely for same reason (plus others).

[quote=danda post_id=9111 time=1678008774 user_id=1000000062]
Let us say that "God" created us and everything we can observe. great. God is clearly "something" and the same logic applies to the realm in which God resides, as applies to what we can observe. To argue otherwise seems to require arguing that God is "nothing" or came from nothing.[/quote]

I wasn't arguing that God isn't "something", only that if God exists, God would have to be outside the universe we know, in which case the universe wouldn't always have to have always existed as you claimed. In that case the collection of space-time, matter, and energy we call the universe could have been created at some point in the past ... and necessarily 13.8 billion years ago. But sometime.

[quote]I predict we will forever meet observation limits at both the small and large scales simply because there is always smaller and bigger/further.[/quote]

Not if the Big Bangers are correct. Right now they say we are on the edge of the the ionization era they claim existed, beyond which there were no galaxies or stars. Beyond which we shouldn't be able to see. But again, my point was more ... who cares in any event? Does knowing which, significantly affect any one's life here on earth other than the astrophysicists themselves? Why are we wasting money on this right now so so many other things need funding ... and I'm not talking about AGWalarmist *studies* or new covid vaccines.

[quote=BeAChooser post_id=9099 time=1677866845 user_id=29858]
Either way, knowing this won't affect our lives in any measurable way so I question the need at this time to spend tens of billions trying to get the answer. It's like counting angels on the head of a pin.
[/quote]

I kinda agree and disagree at the same time.

Pure logic tells me that the universe is infinite in time, space, scale.

"Quantum physics" seems like largely a physicist make-work project with their particle accelerators about as useful as smashing marbles into each other and then naming and cataloging all the various fragments. And the whole Higgs Boson "discovery" was a last ditch effort (fakery) to keep the funding coming and theory alive. See book: The Higgs Fake.

JWST seems like it has been actually useful in that it has forced many establishment types to admit the cosmos are larger and older than believed, and some may even be re-thinking their foundations. It has provided ammo for electric universe, infinite universe, quantum kinetics, and other theories that challenge status quo dogma. Also, jwst cost a LOT less than particle physics over the decades...